Silvia Bekavac, Željko Miletić - CORE · 2020. 1. 5. · Silvia Bekavac, Željko Miletić, Seviri Augustales u Saloni The seviri Augustales in Salona 141 1. Seviri and seviri Augustales

139

The seviri Augustales in Salona

Silvia BekavacUniversity of ZadarArchaeology DepartmentObala kralja Petra Krešimira IV, br. 2CROATIA, 23000 [email protected]

Željko MiletićUniversity of ZadarArchaeology DepartmentObala kralja Petra Krešimira IV, br. 2CROATIA, 23000 [email protected]

UDC: 255.6(398Salona)Original scientific paperReceived: 31 January 2018Accepted: 13 February 2018

Abstract

Based on examples of inscriptions from Salo-na and the Aquileian circle, two forms of freedmen associations have been distinguished: seviri and seviri Augustales. The latter were cultores, active partici-pants in the imperial cult who came from the ranks of Salona’s plutocratic families (Turanii, Clodii, Vetii, Albucii…). The links between the Augustales and the Metroac cognati in the context of the Julio-Claudian ideology of imperial power are demonstrated. After 12 BC, when Augustus became pontifex maximus, the

Silvia Bekavac, Željko Miletić

Seviri Augustales u Saloni

Silvia BekavacSveučilište u ZadruOdjel za arheologijuObala kralja Petra Krešimira IV, br. 2HR, 23000 [email protected]

Željko MiletićSveučilište u ZadruOdjel za arheologijuObala kralja Petra Krešimira IV, br. 2HR, 23000 [email protected]

UDK: 255.6(398Salona)Izvorni znanstveni članakPrimljeno: 31. 1. 2018.Prihvaćeno: 13. 2. 2018.

Sažetak

Na primjerima natpisa iz Salone i akvilejskog kru-ga razgraničena su dva oblika oslobođeničkih kole-gija: seviri i seviri Augustales. Posljednji su cultores, aktivni sudionici carskog kulta, koji dolaze iz redova salonitanskih plutokratskih obitelji (Turanii, Clodii, Vetii, Albucii…). Dokazuje se povezanost augustala s metroačkim kognacijama u kontekstu julijevsko-klaudijevske ideologije carske moći. Nakon 12. g. pr. Kr., kada August postaje pontifex maximus, ključne osobe u širenju carskog kulta u Italiji i provincijama,

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

140

key persons in the dissemination of the imperial cult in Italy and the provinces, and thus in Salona, were the imperial amici: seviri Augustales originally from the familia Caesaris, knights of the imperial admini-stration, and, after 14 AD, the senators in the lobbying organization known as the sodales Augustales.

Key words: seviri Augustales, Salona, familia Caesaris, libertini, Metroac cult

pa tako i u Saloni, jesu carski amici: seviri Augusta-les podrijetlom iz familiae Caesaris, vitezovi carske administracije, a nakon 14. godine 1. st. i senatori u lobističkoj organizaciji sodales Augustales.

Ključne riječi: seviri Augustales, Salona, familia Caesaris, libertini, metroački kult

Silvia Bekavac, Željko Miletić, Seviri Augustales u Saloni The seviri Augustales in Salona

141

1. Seviri and seviri Augustales – two freedmen associations with different roles

The epigraphic evidence confirms that in Salona there were two types of collegia of freedmen: seviri and seviri Augustales. In the older literature, the re-lationship between these two different bodies was obscured, along the lines of Georg Wissowa’s sugges-tion that the seviri Augustales were the same as seviri et seviri Augustales, i.e., annually-serving officials in a collegium that was part of the Augustales order (ordo Augustalium).1 This formulation was further elaborated by Lily Ross Taylor, who attempted to re-construct the chronological sequence of the appear-ance of freedmen associations.2 She concluded that citizen seviri appeared first, and the freedmen seviri who emerged afterward were based on them, only to be later merged into the seviri Augustales. She also did not clearly distinguish the relationship between the designations Augustales and seviri Augustales, whereby the misconceptions surrounding the devel-opment and role of these associations were further reinforced. This pivotal study by Ross Taylor exerted substantial influence on the course of research, but her individual erroneous assertions cast a long shadow over further debate. R. Duthoy, A. Abramenko and I. Gradel were three scholars who had in common their rejection of her classification and introduced a new one with two basic categories of freedmen: one consisted of the seviri Augustales, Augustales and magistri Au-gustales, while the other consisted of seviri.3 In the Croatian literature, a similar stance was accepted by S. Bekavac in her doctoral dissertation, based on the appearance of different categories of freedmen asso-ciations in the context of individual inscriptions from Salona, Italy and the provinces.4 This same scholar and Ž. Miletić expanded the range of problems tied to freedmen associations and based on an analysis of the body of epigraphic monuments, and they discussed them in the manuscript Problemi geneze, strukture i uloge oslobođeničkih tijela sevira i augustala [Prob-lems of the Genesis, Structure and Role of the Freed-men Associations of Seviri and Augustales] prepared for publication.

One of the fundamental reasons for the mistaken connection between the seviri and the Augustales is probably the identical number of six members that both of these associations had as a rule. However, the

1 Wissowa 1986, col. 2349-2361.2 Ross Taylor 1914.3 Duthoy 1978; Abramenko 1993, p. 14; Gradel 2002, p.

229. 4 Bekavac 2015, pp. 248-265.

1. Seviri i seviri Augustales – dva oslobođenička tijela s različitim ulogama

Epigrafička evidencija potvrđuje da u Saloni po-stoje dva tipa oslobođeničkih kolegija: seviri i seviri Augustales. U starijoj literaturi odnos između tih ra-zličitih tijela bio je zamagljen, na tragu prijedloga Ge-orga Wissowe da su seviri Augustales isto što i seviri et seviri Augustales, tj. godišnji službenici u kolegiju koji je dio augustalskog reda (ordo Augustalium).1 Na takav stav konstrukciju je nadgradila Lily Ross Taylor, koja je pokušala rekonstruirati kronološki sli-jed pojave oslobođeničkih asocijacija.2 Zaključila je da se najprije javljaju građanski seviri, po uzoru na koje nastaju oslobođenički seviri, da bi se oni kasni-je djelomice stopili sa sevirima augustalima. Također nije dobro razgraničila odnos između naziva Augusta-les i seviri Augustales, čime su zablude oko razvoja i uloge tih tijela još više pojačane. Stožerna rasprava Ross Taylor snažno je odredila smjerove istraživanja, ali su pojedine njezine pogrešne tvrdnje bitno opte-retile daljnje rasprave. R. Duthoy, A. Abramenko i I. Gradel tri su autora kojima je zajedničko da su odba-cili njezinu podjelu i uveli novu, s dvije osnovne ka-tegorije oslobođenika: u jednoj su seviri Augustales, Augustales i magistri Augustales, a u drugoj seviri.3 U domaćoj literaturi sličan stav prihvatila je S. Bekavac u svojoj doktorskoj disertaciji, a utemeljen je na poja-vi naziva različitih kategorija oslobođeničkih tijela u kontekstu pojedinačnih natpisa iz Salone, Italije i pro-vincija.4 Ista autorica i Ž. Miletić proširili su repertoar problema vezanih uz oslobođenička tijela i na temelju analize korpusa epigrafičkih spomenika raspravili ih u rukopisu Problemi geneze, strukture i uloge oslobođe-ničkih tijela sevira i augustala priređenom za tisak.

Jedan od temeljnih razloga zbog kojeg je došlo do pogrešnog povezivanja sevira sa sevirima augustali-ma vjerojatno je isti broj od šest članova koliko ih je, načelno, u oba tijela. Međutim, epitet Augustalis je ključna poveznica za istovrsna tijela koja nalazimo pod nazivima seviri Augustales, magistri Augustales ili jednostavno Augustales, pridjev koji upućuje da su oni cultores, involvirani u carski kult, po čemu se bit-no razlikuju od “običnih” sevira (bez epiteta Augusta-lis) koji to nisu. Augustovim reformama ustanovljene su obje kategorije oslobođeničkih asocijacija kojima je namjena bila ispuniti prazno polje u afirmaciji oslo-bođeničke elite u municipalnom životu, ali istodobno

1 Wissowa 1986, col. 2349-2361.2 Ross Taylor 1914.3 Duthoy 1978; Abramenko 1993, str. 14; Gradel 2002,

str. 229. 4 Bekavac 2015, str. 248-265.

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

142

epithet Augustalis is the key link for similar associa-tions which can be found under the designations seviri Augustales, magistri Augustales or simply August-ales, an adjective which indicates that they were cul-tores, involved in the imperial cult, essentially distin-guishing them from the “ordinary” seviri (without the epithet Augustalis) who were not. Both categories of freedmen associations were set forth by the Augustan reforms, and their purpose was to fill an empty field in the affirmation of the freedmen elite in municipal life, but also regulate the rights and obligations of libertini inside the Roman legal system which were obfuscated during the period of civil wars.5 Narona was one of the rare cities in which epigraphic confirmations of seviri organized already during the lifetime of Au-gustus could be found.6 The reason is the Caesarean constitution of the colony and the creation of a power-ful class of freedmen who imposed themselves in the city’s politics and administration under such circum-stances.7

Salona, as the capital and the strongest administra-tive and economic hub of the province of Dalmatia, had – as could be expected – a notable social class of libertini organized into both of the aforementioned categories of collegia. Several dozen confirmations of their collegia serve as a sufficient statistical sam-pling from which it is apparent that there were fewer of them in the seviri than in the Augustales, which corresponds to the situation in most major cities in the Empire. Virtually the entirety of the source materials on the seviri in Salona is limited to the passages in the sequence of honours (cursus honorum) of individu-als on funerary inscriptions, which is why there is no insight into their activities. Thanks to the rich com-parative materials from the Empire, especially from Italy, but also the Gallic provinces and other areas, we know for certain that the seviri may be seen as freedmen magistrates ranked below the civic associa-tions who wanted to distinguish themselves in their communities through munificence, mostly pertaining to construction works, the organization of spectacles and donations (and receiving) of the sportula, ranging

5 Ross Taylor 1914, pp. 241-244; Rawson 1987, p. 102; López Barja de Quiroga 1995, pp. 326-327; López Barja de Quiroga, Latins 1998, pp. 139-140; Gard-ner 2002, pp. 23-24, 39-43; Eck 2007, pp. 107-108; Mouritsen 2011, p. 85.

6 CIL 3, 1769: Aug(usto) sacr(um) / C(aius) Iulius Macrini lib(ertus) / Martialis IIIIIIvir m(unicipibus) m(unicipii) ob / honour(em) idem ludos scaenic(os) / per trid(uum) d(edit) et canthar(um) ar<g=C>(enteum) p(ondo) |(unciarum septem).

7 Bekavac, Miletić 2016, pp. 241-242.

i regulirati prava i obaveze libertina unutar rimskoga pravnog sustava, zamagljene u razdoblju građanskih ratova.5 Narona je jedan od rijetkih gradova u kojima nalazimo epigrafičke potvrde za sevire organizirane još za Augustova života.6 Razlog je cezarijanska kon-stitucija kolonije i stvaranje moćnog oslobođeničkog sloja koji se u tim okolnostima nametnuo u politič-kom i upravljačkom životu grada.7

Salona, kao glavni grad i najjače administrativno i gospodarsko središte provincije Dalmacije, očekivano je imala izrazit društveni sloj libertina organiziranih u obje spomenute kategorije kolegija. Nekoliko dese-taka potvrda njihovih kolegija dovoljan su statistički uzorak iz kojeg je vidljivo da ih je manje u sevirima nego u augustalima, što je u skladu sa stanjem u veći-ni važnih gradova Carstva. Gotovo cjelokupna građa o sevirima u Saloni svedena je na spomen te stavke u slijedu časti (cursus honorum) pojedinaca na funeral-nim natpisima, zbog čega nema saznanja o njihovim aktivnostima. Zahvaljujući bogatoj komparativnoj građi iz Carstva, osobito iz Italije, ali i galskih provin-cija i drugih sredina, pouzdano znamo da sevire mo-žemo shvatiti kao oslobođeničke magistrate rangirane ispod građanskih tijela koji su se u svojim sredinama željeli iskazati kroz munificijencije, ponajviše građe-vinske radove, organiziranje spektakala i darivanja (i primanja) sportula u rasponu od podjele hrane i pića do novčanih davanja.

Upravo zbog toga što se na natpisima pripadnici kolegija sevira u Saloni deklariraju kao libertini, mo-žemo s pouzdanošću utvrditi da takav status imaju i Decimo Petronije Dazije i Decimo Petronije Kilon, premda na natpisu CIL 3, 2097a uz njihova imena nema formalnih statusnih oznaka.8 Vrijedi i obrnuto: da oni nisu istaknuli pripadnost kolegiju sevira, na te-melju onomastičke formule mogli bismo dvojiti je li njihov status građanski ili libertinski.

Svega nekoliko sevirskih natpisa iz Salone omo-gućuje kontekstualiziranje. Oslobođenik, sevir Mar-ko Satrije bogati je vlasnik goleme grobne parcele u Saloni (in fronte pedes XV, in agro pedes L) na kojoj

5 Ross Taylor 1914, str. 241-244; Rawson 1987, str. 102; López Barja de Quiroga 1995, str. 326-327; López Barja de Quiroga, Latins 1998, str. 139-140; Gar-dner 2002, str. 23-24, 39-43; Eck 2007, str. 107-108; Mouritsen 2011, str. 85.

6 CIL 3, 1769: Aug(usto) sacr(um) / C(aius) Iulius Macrini lib(ertus) / Martialis IIIIIIvir m(unicipibus) m(unicipii) ob / honor(em) idem ludos scaenic(os) / per trid(uum) d(edit) et canthar(um) ar<g=C>(enteum) p(ondo) |(unciarum septem).

7 Bekavac, Miletić 2016, str. 241-242.8 D(ecimus) Petronius / Dasius IIIIIIvir / D(ecimus)

Petronius / Cilo IIIIIIvir.


143

from the distribution of food and beverages to gifts of money.

Precisely because the members of seviri associa-tions in Salona were declared libertini, we may as-sert with certainty that this status applied to Decimus Petronius Dasius and Decimus Petronius Cilo, even though their names are not accompanied by formal status designations in inscription CIL 3, 2097a.8 The opposite also applies: if they had not underscored their belonging to the seviri, their status as citizens or libertini would have been uncertain solely on the basis of their onomastic formulas.

Only a few seviri inscriptions from Salona allow for any contextualization. The freedman and sevir Marcus Satrius was the wealthy owner of an immense grave plot in Salona (in fronte pedes XV, in agro pedes L) on which his family (children and freedmen) were interred together with the families of Statorius Festus and his friend Calpurnius Callistus.9 The children of Satrius are citizens, as are the children of the sevir Sex-tus Orbius Paullus from the inscription CIL 3, 8797.10 His daughter, the citizen Orbia Paulla, pursuant to the ius testamenti factio, raised the gravestone without once mentioning her husband, a certain Grattius, from whom Paulla’s son inherited his gentilicium. Paulla’s brother, the son of Sextus Orbius, took advantage of the family’s wealth and reputation and was elected to the pontificate of the Salona colony, i.e., to reputable post in the council of decurions. As opposed to the children of the freedman Sextus Orbius Paullus, the children of Publius Caetennius Agahilus from inscrip-tion CIL 3, 2094 = CIL 3, 8582 did not have citizen-ship, because they were not ingenui, but rather born into slavery with their entire family, which is why they bore the gentilicium of their common owner (pa-tron) and manumissor Publius Caetennius.11 The son

8 D(ecimus) Petronius / Dasius IIIIIIvir / D(ecimus) Petronius / Cilo IIIIIIvir.

9 M(arcus) Satrius M(arci) l(ibertus) Valens / VIv(ir) f(ecit) sibi et Satriae Eufrosyn(a)e / co(n)iugi pientis-simae et Satrio / Floro f(ilio) Satriae Valentinae f(iliae) liber/tis libertab(us)que eor(um) h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur) / commune est una cum Stator(io) Festo / posterisq(ue) eor(um) et Calpurnio Callisto ami(co) / in f(ronte) p(edes) XV in ag(ro) p(edes) L; ILJug 2, 682.

10 Orbia S[e]x(ti) f(ilia) Paulla / t(estamento) f(ieri) ius[sit] sibi et / Sex(to) Orbio [Paull]o IIIIIIvir(o) pa-tri / Cordiae A[3]fae matri / Sex(to) Orbio Pr[aec]on-ino(?) pontif(ici) fratri / P(ublio) Grattio C[am]pano f(ilio).

11 P(ublius) Caetennius / Agahilas v(ivus) f(ecit) s(ibi) / et / Caeteniae / P(ubli) l(ibertae) fil(iae) Venus<t=I>ae / et P(ublio) Caetenio / Venus<t=I>o VIvir(o) / fil(io) eius.

se njegova familija (djeca i oslobođenici) ukapa za-jedno s onom Statorija Festa i s prijateljem Kalpurni-jem Kalistom.9 Satrijeva djeca su građani, kao što su to i djeca sevira Seksta Orbija Paula s natpisa CIL 3, 8797.10 Njegova kći, građanka Orbija Paula, na teme-lju ius testamenti factio podiže nadgrobni spomenik, ne spomenuvši nijednom muža, nekog Gratija, od ko-jeg je Paulin sin naslijedio gentilicij. Paulin brat, sin Seksta Orbija, uživao je prednosti bogatstva i ugleda obitelji i izabran je za pontifika kolonije Salone, tj. na ugledan magistratski položaj unutar dekurionskog vi-jeća. Za razliku od djece oslobođenika Seksta Orbija Paula, djeca Publija Cetenija Agahila s natpisa CIL 3, 2094 = CIL 3, 8582 nemaju civitet, jer nisu ingenui, nego su rođeni u ropstvu s cijelom obitelji i zato svi nose isti gentilicij zajedničkog patrona i manumisora Publija Cetenija.11 Sin Venusto stoga nema građansku karijeru, nego je postao sevir. Već smo naveli da seviri nisu organizirani u sustavu carskoga kulta; općenito, veoma je mali broj natpisa iz Carstva na kojima seviri podižu votivne are diviniziranim carevima ili poduzi-maju slične aktivnosti. To rade kao privatna lica, a ne kao pripadnici kolegija, pogotovo ne kolektivno.

Za razliku od njih, seviri augustali aktivni su su-dionici carskog kulta, što je izvanredno dobro doku-mentirano u bogatom epigrafičkom i arheološkom korpusu spomenika; iskopana su njihova sjedišta (au-gustea), brojni votivni spomenici, počasne skulpture, konsekrativni natpisi i munificijencije posvećene care-vima, kao i akti vezani uz njihove unutarnje religijsko i financijsko poslovanje.12 Iz njihove dokumentacije

9 M(arcus) Satrius M(arci) l(ibertus) Valens / VIv(ir) f(ecit) sibi et Satriae Eufrosyn(a)e / co(n)iugi pientissi-mae et Satrio / Floro f(ilio) Satriae Valentinae f(iliae) liber/tis libertab(us)que eor(um) h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur) / commune est una cum Stator(io) Festo / posterisq(ue) eor(um) et Calpur-nio Callisto ami(co) / in f(ronte) p(edes) XV in ag(ro) p(edes) L; ILJug 2, 682.

10 Orbia S[e]x(ti) f(ilia) Paulla / t(estamento) f(ieri) ius[sit] sibi et / Sex(to) Orbio [Paull]o IIIIIIvir(o) patri / Cordiae A[3]fae matri / Sex(to) Orbio Pr[aec]oni-no(?) pontif(ici) fratri / P(ublio) Grattio C[am]pano f(ilio).

11 P(ublius) Caetennius / Agahilas v(ivus) f(ecit) s(ibi) / et / Caeteniae / P(ubli) l(ibertae) fil(iae) Venus<t=I>ae / et P(ublio) Caetenio / Venus<t=I>o VIvir(o) / fil(io) eius.

12 Spomenimo samo mizenatski “Sacello degli Augusta-li” i natpis AE 1993, 468 (…in templo Augusti quod est Augustalium); dva natpisa iz Literna AE 2001, 853 i AE 2001, 854 (Augustales creati ii qui in cultu do-mus divinae contulerunt), kao i navod u Tacita, Anna-les I,73: “…quod inter cultores Augusti, qui per omnis domos in modium collegiorum habebantur”).

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

144

Venustus thus did not have a civic career, but rather became a sevir. We have already stated that the se-viri were not organized into the imperial cult system; in general, there is a very small number inscriptions from the Empire in which the seviri installed votive altars to deified emperors or undertook similar activi-ties. They did so as private individuals rather than as members of collegia, particularly not collectively.

As opposed to them, the seviri Augustales were active participants in the imperial cult, which is ex-traordinarily well-documented in the rich body of epigraphic and archaeological monuments; their meeting places (augustea) have been excavated, and numerous votive monuments, honorary sculptures, consecrative inscriptions and munificence dedicated to emperors, as well as rules tied to their internal re-ligious and financial operations, have been found.12 Based on their own documents and the decisions of decurion councils, it is clear that the seviri Augustales had a higher reputation than the seviri in the com-munities in which they both simultaneously existed. This can be proven because individuals from the col-legium of seviri Augustales received the high honour of the bisellium,13 they earned decurion insignia (or-namenta decurionalia) and they were delegated to municipal councils.14 Also, in many cases of granting summae to the residents of a municipium, the most money was received by decurions, and after them in-dividuals from the Augustales order, and only after them the seviri, the members of professional guilds

12 We shall here specifically mention only the “Sacello degli Augustali” of Miseno, and inscription AE 1993, 468 (…in templo Augusti quod est Augustalium); two inscriptions from Liternum, AE 2001, 853 and AE 2001, 854 (Augustales creati ii qui in cultu domus divi-nae contulerunt), and the statement in Tacitus, Annales I,73: “…quod inter cultores Augusti, qui per omnis do-mos in modium collegiorum habebantur”).

13 For an example, see the inscriptions Barium: AE 2008, 416; Petelia: CIL 10, 112; Ostia: CIL 14, 431; Veii: CIL 11, 3805.

14 Examples of conferring decurion ornaments can be seen in these inscriptions: Sarmizegetusa: CIL 3, 1425; Mediolanum: CIL 5, 5844; Lucurgentum: AE 1962, 337; Misenum: AE 2000, 344; Nemausus: CIL 12, 3203; CIL 12, 3219; CIL 12, 3191; CIL 12, 3221; CIL 12, 3245; CIL 12, 3249; CIL 12, 4068; Formiae: AE 2005, 324; Senia: CIL 3, 3016. An example of confer-ring honorary aedile insignia to seviri Augustales can be seen in inscriptions CIL 2-14-1, 796 i CIL 2, 4061 from Dertosa. The adlection mechanism, i.e., the direct assignment of a freedman sevir Augustalis into the mu-nicipal ordo has been recorded in several inscriptions, for example in AE 1993, 472 from Miseno and CIL 2, 2026 from Singilia Barba in Baetica.

i iz odluka dekurionskog vijeća jasno je da su seviri augustali imali veći ugled od sevira u sredinama gdje su usporedo egzistirali. To je dokazivo jer su upravo pojedinci iz kolegija sevira augustala dobivali visoku počast biselija,13 stjecali su dekurionska odlikovanja (ornamenta decurionalia) i adlegirani su u gradsko vijeće.14 Također, u brojnim slučajevima davanja sum-mae stanovnicima municipija, najviše novca dobivaju dekurioni, nakon njih pojedinci iz augustalskog reda, a tek zatim seviri, članovi profesionalnih kolegija “obični” municipes.15 Do takve je hijerarhije došlo jer je sudjelovanje sevira augustala u carskom kultu bilo poželjno i podobno. Poredak je drugačiji samo u iznimnim situacijama, npr. kada seviri nisu isključi-vo libertinsko tijelo, nego miješano, sastavljeno i od građana, kako je to slučaj u nekoliko municipaliteta sjeverne i srednje Italije.16

Epigrafički podaci iz sjevernojadranskog, akvilej-skog kruga obilato potvrđuju naš načelno izneseni stav da su to dvije različite dužnosti. Kao primjer donosimo natpis CIL 3, 3836a iz Emone podignut in memoriam Tita Velija Onezima, koji je bio magistrat u tri grada: Emoni, Akvileji i Parentiju; u njegovoj karijeri navo-de se dvije vrste dužnosti, jedna je ona sevira u Emoni i u Akvileji, a druga augustala u Emoni i u Parentiju: Dianae / Aug(ustae) sac(rum) / in memor(iam) / T(iti) Velli Ones(imi) / IIIIIIvir(i) et / Aug(ustalis) Emon(ae) / IIIIIIvir(i) Aq(uileiae) / [A]ug(ustalis) Paren(tii) / [---]. Analogan primjer je na natpisu CIL 5, 827 iz

13 Za primjer vidi natpise Barium: AE 2008, 416; Petelia: CIL 10, 112; Ostia: CIL 14, 431; Veii: CIL 11, 3805.

14 Primjere dodjeljivanja dekurionskih ornamenta vidi na natpisima: Sarmizegetusa: CIL 3, 1425; Mediolanum: CIL 5, 5844; Lucurgentum: AE 1962, 337; Misenum: AE 2000, 344; Nemausus: CIL 12, 3203; CIL 12, 3219; CIL 12, 3191; CIL 12, 3221; CIL 12, 3245; CIL 12, 3249; CIL 12, 4068; Formiae: AE 2005, 324; Senia: CIL 3, 3016. Primjer dodjeljivanja počasnih edilskih obilježja sevirima augustalima vidi na natpisima CIL 2-14-1, 796 i CIL 2, 4061 iz Dertose. Mehanizam ad-lekcije, tj. izravnog postavljanja oslobođeničkih sevira augustala u gradski ordo zabilježen je na nekoliko nat-pisa, primjer su AE 1993, 472 iz Mizena te CIL 2, 2026 iz Singilije Barbe u Betici.

15 Reprezentativni primjeri iz niza natpisa diljem Carstva su CIL 10, 415 iz Volceija u regiji Bruttium et Lucania, zatim CIL 14, 2410 (Castrimoenium, Regio I) te CIL 3, 1745 iz Epidaura u provinciji Dalmaciji.

16 Građanski seviri javljaju se na natpisima u municipi-ju Comum u Transpadani (Regio XI): AE 1996, 733; AE 2003, 752; CIL 5, 5267, zatim u Askulu Picenskom (Regio V): AE 1946, 186, Veroni (Venetia et Histria/Regio X): CIL 5, 4492, Favenciji (Aemilia/Regio VIII): CIL 11, 632, te u Forum Semproniji u Umbriji (Regio VI): CIL 11, 6130; CIL 11, 6131; CIL 11, 6134.


145

and “ordinary” municipes.15 Such a hierarchy was cre-ated because the participation of the seviri Augustales in the imperial cult was desirable and advantageous. The order was only different in exceptional situations, e.g., when the seviri were not in an exclusive associa-tion of the libertini, but rather a mixed association, consisting of citizens as well, which was the case in several municipalities in northern and central Italy.16

Epigraphic data from the northern Adriatic, Aq-uileian circle abundantly confirm our generally for-mulated assertion that these were two different posts. As an example, we cite inscription CIL 3, 3836a from Emona, installed in memoriam for Titus Vellius One-simus, who was a magistrate in three cities: Emona, Aquileia and Parentium; two types of posts are cit-ed for his career; one is that of sevir in Emona and Aquileia, and the other Augustalis in Emona and Par-entium: Dianae / Aug(ustae) sac(rum) / in memor(iam) / T(iti) Velli Ones(imi) / IIIIIIvir(i) et / Aug(ustalis) Emon(ae) / IIIIIIvir(i) Aq(uileiae) / [A]ug(ustalis) Paren(tii) / [---]. An analogous example is inscription CIL 5, 827 from Aquileia, which records the decision of the city council to make a dedication to Silvanus, in honorem to Lucius Statius Onesimus, who was a sevir, and an in memoriam to Gaius Statius Primi-genius, who was an Augustalis: Silvano / Aug(usto) sacr(um) / in honour(em) / L(uci) Stati Onesimi / IIIIIIvir(i) et / in memor(iam) C(ai) Stat(i) / Primige-ni Aug(ustalis) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) / L(uci) Stati Hermetis / L(ucius) Statius Encolpus / IIIIIIvir. An additional confirmation of the distinction between the two functions (sevir and sevir Augustalis) is the fact that Lucius Statius Encolpus, who was a sevir, saw to the entire action. In Aquileia itself, individu-als could also hold both posts (sevir and Augustalis) during their lives, which was then often expressed by the formula sevir et Augustalis.17 The distinction be-tween sevir and (sevir) Augustalis is also apparent on

15 More typical examples from a series of inscriptions throughout the Empire are CIL 10, 415 from Volcei in the region of Bruttium et Lucania, then CIL 14, 2410 (Castrimoenium, Regio I) and CIL 3, 1745 from Epi-daurum in the province of Dalmatia.

16 The municipal seviri appeared in inscriptions in the municipium of Comum in Transpadania (Regio XI): AE 1996, 733; AE 2003, 752; CIL 5, 5267, and then in Picenian Asculum (Regio V): AE 1946, 186, Verona (Venetia et Histria/Regio X): CIL 5, 4492, Faventia (Aemilia/Regio VIII): CIL 11, 632, and in Forum Sem-pronii in Umbria (Regio VI): CIL 11, 6130; CIL 11, 6131; CIL 11, 6134.

17 E.g. CIL 5, 1004: Petroniae / C(ai) fil(iae) Bassillae / C(aius) Petronius / Felix IIIIIIvir et Aug(ustalis) / et Petronia / [Lao]dicia(?) / [---].

Akvileje, na kojem je zabilježeno da se odlukom grad-skog vijeća vrši posveta Silvanu, in honorem Lucija Stacija Onezima, koji je sevir, odnosno in memoriam Gaja Stacija Primigenija, koji je augustal: Silvano / Aug(usto) sacr(um) / in honor(em) / L(uci) Stati One-simi / IIIIIIvir(i) et / in memor(iam) C(ai) Stat(i) / Pri-migeni Aug(ustalis) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) / L(uci) Stati Hermetis / L(ucius) Statius Encolpus / IIIIIIvir. Dodatna potvrda razlikovanja te dvije funkcije (sevir i sevir Augustalis) je i činjenica da se oko čitave akci-je pobrinuo Lucius Statius Encolpus, koji je sevir. U samoj Akvileji pojedine su osobe tijekom svog života mogle obnašati i dvije dužnosti (sevira i augustala), što su onda često izražavale jednom formulom sevir et Augustalis.17 Razlikovanje sevira od (sevira) augu-stala vidljivo je na nadgrobnom natpisu CIL 5, 2523 (Ateste, Regio X) Tita Arecija Apijola, koji je najprije bio sevir, a zatim augustal: T(itus) Aretius T(iti) C(ai) L(uci) l(ibertus) / Apiolus IIIIIIvir / idem Augustalis / sibi et… Izravnu i konačnu potvrdu razlikovanja sevi-ra od sevira augustala nalazimo na posvetnom natpisu CIL 11, 360 iz Ariminija: Pantheum sacrum / L(ucius) Viricius Cypaerus sexvir / et sexvir Augustalis.

U tom smislu treba razgraničiti sevire od sevira au-gustala u Saloni, kao što je vidljivo na sljedećem pri-mjeru: T(itus) Ancharius Anthus / IIIIIIvir Aug(ustalis) t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit) ex HS VI(milibus) sibi / et Petroniae Prothesi uxori et / libert(is) heredibusq(ue) / [F]ortunato Tit(-)? Zosimo VIvir(o) Zopyro / [E]pap-hrodito Substituto Abascanto / [Pet]roniae Iucundae Anchario Iusto et omnib(us) lib(ertis) libertabusque.18 Oslobođenik Tit Anharije Anto koji je bio sevir Augu-stalis daje (funeralno mjesto) vlastitim oslobođenici-ma i nasljednicima Fortunatu, Tit(-?), Zosimu, Zopi-ru, Epafroditu, Substitutu i Abaskantu, ženi Petroniji Protezi i kćeri Petroniji Jukundi (njih dvije oslobodio je isti patron Petronije) i sinu, oslobođeniku Anhariju Justu (čiji je patron Tit Anharije isti kao i očev). Uz ime oslobođenika (Tita Anharija) Zosima navodi se i njegova dužnost sevira.

Na isti način prikazuje se razlika između sevirata i augustaliteta na natpisu CIL 3, 3195b = CIL 3, 8807: C(aius) Volusius Primi/genius VIvir / vivos(!) fecit sibi et / C(aio) Volusio Euhemero / conlibert(o) VIvir(o) Aug(ustali) et / C(aio) Volusio Primigenio f(ilio) defunc(to) / annor(um) VIII libertis libertabusq(ue) / suis ossibus inferendis extranior(um) / nequis ossa inferre velit et tu et / tibi / in fr(onte) p(edes) XXX in / agr(o) p(edes) XXX. Gaj Voluzije Primigenij je sevir

17 Npr. CIL 5, 1004: Petroniae / C(ai) fil(iae) Bassillae / C(aius) Petronius / Felix IIIIIIvir et Aug(ustalis) / et Petronia / [Lao]dicia(?) / [---].

18 CIL 3, 2092.

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

146

Sl. 1. Ara oslobođenika Gaja Turanija Kronija, Arheološki muzej u Splitu (foto: Ž. Miletić)Fig. 1. Altar of the freedman Gaius Turranius Cronius, Archaeological Museum in Split (photo: Ž. Miletić)

funerary inscription CIL 5, 2523 (Ateste, Regio X) of Titus Aretius Apiolus, who was first a sevir, and then an Augustalis: T(itus) Aretius T(iti) C(ai) L(uci) l(ibertus) / Apiolus IIIIIIvir / idem Augustalis / sibi et… The direct and final confirmation of the distinc-tion between sevir and sevir Augustalis can be found in dedicatory inscription CIL 11, 360 from Arimini-um: Pantheum sacrum / L(ucius) Viricius Cypaerus sexvir / et sexvir Augustalis.

In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish be-tween sevir and sevir Augustalis in Salona, as illus-trated in the following example: T(itus) Ancharius An-thus / IIIIIIvir Aug(ustalis) t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit) ex HS VI(milibus) sibi / et Petroniae Prothesi uxori et / libert(is) heredibusq(ue) / [F]ortunato Tit(-)? Zosimo VIvir(o) Zopyro / [E]paphrodito Substituto Abascanto / [Pet]roniae Iucundae Anchario Iusto et omnib(us) lib(ertis) libertabusque.18 The freedman Titus Ancharius Anthus, who was sevir Augustalis, granted (a burial plot) to his own freedmen and heirs, Fortunatus, Tit(-?), Zosimus, Zopyrus, Epaphroditus, Substitutus and Abascantus, his wife Petronia Prothesa and daughter Petronia Jucunda (the two of them were freed by the same owner, Petronius) and his son, the freedman Ancharius Justus (whose master Titus An-charius was the same as his father’s). The name of the freedman (Titus Ancharius) Zosimus is accompanied by his post of sevir.

The difference between the status of sevir and Au-gustalis is also illustrated in inscription CIL 3, 3195b = CIL 3, 8807: C(aius) Volusius Primi/genius VIvir / vivos(!) fecit sibi et / C(aio) Volusio Euhemero / conlibert(o) VIvir(o) Aug(ustali) et / C(aio) Volusio Primigenio f(ilio) defunc(to) / annor(um) VIII libertis libertabusq(ue) / suis ossibus inferendis extranior(um) / nequis ossa inferre velit et tu et / tibi / in fr(onte) p(edes) XXX in / agr(o) p(edes) XXX. Gaius Volusius Primigenius was a sevir who raised a gravestone to his son, a citizen, and the freedman Gaius Volusius Euhemerus, was a sevir Augustalis. There is no room for any speculation as to the abbreviation of titles due to a lack of space in the inscription field.

2. Powerful families and respected seviri Augustales

Election to one of the freedmen associations was largely determined by the power of the core families which sent their men to the decurion councils.

Among the respected families were the Turrania, who were of indigenous origin in Scardona and whose individual members acquired citizenship and wealth

18 CIL 3, 2092.

koji nadgrobni spomenik podiže svom sinu građani-nu, te suoslobođeniku Gaju Voluziju Euhemeru koji je sevir Augustalis. Nema mjesta nikakvim razmišlja-njima o skraćivanju titula radi nedostatka prostora na natpisnom polju.

2. Moćne obitelji i ugledni seviri augustali

Izbor u neku od oslobođeničkih asocijacija umno-gome je određen snagom matičnih familija koje su davale ljude u dekurionsko vijeće.

Među uglednima je Turrania, indigena obitelj u Skardoni, čiji su pojedinci rano stekli civitet i bogat-stvo. Tit Turanije Sedat (CIL 3, 2810) bio je skardoni-tanski dekurion i duovir te sacerdos liburnskoga car-skoga kulta.19 Tit Turanije Ver (CIL 3, 2085) obnašao je funkciju skardonitanskog edila, a zatim se odselio u Salonu, gdje je pokopan. Građanka Arija Maksima podignula je nadgrobni spomenik njemu (svom sinu), sebi i (novom) suprugu te njihovim oslobođenicima.20 Na natpisu se ne spominje da bi Ver imao djece, ali oslobođenici tog ili nekog drugog Turanija šire se i

19 CIL 3, 2810: T(ito) Turra[nio] / T(iti) f(ilio) Ser(gia) Seda[to] / decurioni II[viro] / Scardonis sacer[doti] / ad aram Aug(usti) Lib[urn(iae)] / huic ordo Scardo[nitan(orum)] / statuam decre[vit] / Iulia Sex(ti) f(ilia) Maxima / i<m=N>pensa remi[ssa] / d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit) l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). Turaniju je skardonitanski ordo podigao statuu, a troškove je platila supruga Maksima.

20 CIL 3, 2085: T(ito) Turranio / T(iti) f(ilio) Vero / ae-dili Scardon(ae) / Arria C(ai) f(ilia) Maxima fil(io) / pientissimo fec(it) et sibi et / C(aio) Maecio Maximo coniug(i) / libertis libertabusq(ue) suis. Vidi i Beka-vac, Glavaš 2011, str. 79-80.


147

at an early phase. Titus Turranius Sedatus (CIL 3, 2810) was a Scardonian decurion, duovir and sacer-dos of the Liburnian imperial cult.19 Titus Turranius Verus (CIL 3, 2085) held the post of Scardonian ae-dile, and then moved to Salona, where he was bur-ied. The citizen Arria Maxima raised the gravestone for him (her son) and herself and (her new) spouse and their freedmen.20 There is no mention in the in-scription as to whether Verus had children, but the freedmen of this or some other Turranius had spread and branched out into Salona. These included the distinguished freedman Gaius Turranius Cronius, a sevir Augustalis whose wealth was demonstrated by the campaign to build a temple to the Magna Mater and the dedication of altars which he had ‘polished’ (expolit) in the sense of final rendering (Fig. 1).21 To fulfil this vow, he spent his own money to the benefit of the Salonitan Metroac cognatio, a religious asso-ciation gathered around the cult of Cybele, of which he was probably a member judging by Cybele’s pa-tronage of the association. During the Principate, the Metroac cult had strong ties to the imperial cult, so there was nothing unusual about a sevir Augustalis being active in a Metroac cult. This connection was “natural,” because a significant foundation for the transformation of the private gentile cult of the Ju-lians into a public imperial cult was Augustus’ promo-tion of the Julians as being of Trojan origin, whence, from the territory of the Kingdom of Pergamon, the Mother of the Gods was brought two centuries ear-lier by decision of the Senate.22 The renewed interest in the goddess of the Roman primeval homeland was a component of the complex campaign to establish the institution of the princeps as a powerful, preemi-nent magistrate, so it comes as no surprise that Ovid,

19 CIL 3, 2810: T(ito) Turra[nio] / T(iti) f(ilio) Ser(gia) Seda[to] / decurioni II[viro] / Scardonis sacer[doti] / ad aram Aug(usti) Lib[urn(iae)] / huic ordo Scardo[nitan(orum)] / statuam decre[vit] / Iulia Sex(ti) f(ilia) Maxima / i<m=N>pensa remi[ssa] / d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit) l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). The Scardonian ordo raised a statue to Turranius, and the expense was covered by his wife Maxima.

20 CIL 3, 2085: T(ito) Turranio / T(iti) f(ilio) Vero / ae-dili Scardon(ae) / Arria C(ai) f(ilia) Maxima fil(io) / pientissimo fec(it) et sibi et / C(aio) Maecio Maximo coniug(i) / libertis libertabusq(ue) suis. See also Beka-vac, Glavaš 2011, pp. 79-80.

21 CIL 3, 8675 = D 4105 = CCCA-6, 165: Matri Magnae / Cognationis / C(aius) Turranius Cronius / IIIIIIvir August(alis) / voto suscepto aedem et / aram d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) fecit et expolit / idemque dedicavit. On the inscription, see Medini 1985, p. 7; Šašel Kos 1999, p. 83.

22 Vermaseren 1977, pp. 1-37; Simon 1990, p. 147.

granaju po Saloni. Među njima je i istaknuti oslobo-đenik Gaj Turanije Kronije, sevir augustal o čijem bo-gatstvu svjedoči akcija izgradnje svetišta Velikoj Maj-ci i posvećenje are koje je dotjerao (expolit) u smislu završnog uređenja (sl. 1).21 Za ispunjene tog zavjeta potrošio je vlastiti novac, na korist salonitanske me-troačke kognacije, vjerskog udruženja okupljenog oko Kibelina kulta, čiji je član i sam vjerojatno bio, sudeći po Kibelinu pokroviteljstvu nad udruženjem. Tijekom principata metroački kult snažno je povezan s carskim, pa ne začuđuje da je jedan sevir Augustalis aktivan u metroačkoj sljedbi. Ta veza je “prirodna” jer je za preoblikovanje privatnog gentilnog kulta Julije-vaca u javni carski kult važna podloga bila Augustovo isticanje trojanskog podrijetla Julijevaca, odakle je, iz prostora Pergamskog Kraljevstva, dva stoljeća ranije donesena Majka Bogova odlukom Senata.22 Obnova zanimanja za božicu rimske prapostojbine dio je slo-ženog programa uspostave institucije princepsa kao moćnog višestrukog magistrata, pa ne čudi što Ovi-dije, Vergilije i Livije, pisci s Augustova dvora, ak-tualiziraju legendu o dolasku Kibele u Rim.23 Kada je poslije car Klaudije (čiji je predak bio član senat-ske delegacije koja je uvela božicu Kibelu u Rim, a Claudia Quinta bila je glavni akter čuvene epizode u uvođenju Božice) pokazao zanimanje za metroač-ki kult, to je neminovno dovelo do njegovog snažnog populariziranja u Carstvu.24 Nositelji tog ideološkog i političkog trenda u municipalitetima su obitelji čije se bogatstvo manifestira i u produkciji uglednih oslo-bođenika izabiranih među sevire augustale. Primjer su Clodii iz Salone. Teško je ustanoviti točne veze između nositelja tog gentilnog imena na nekoliko de-setaka natpisa iz Salone na kojima se spominju muš-karci i žene, građanski magistrati i oslobođenici (neki su seviri Augustales),25 ali njihova brojnost odražava

21 CIL 3, 8675 = D 4105 = CCCA-6, 165: Matri Magnae / Cognationis / C(aius) Turranius Cronius / IIIIIIvir August(alis) / voto suscepto aedem et / aram d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) fecit et expolit / idemque dedicavit. O natpisu vidi u Medini 1985, str. 7; Šašel Kos 1999, str. 83.

22 Vermaseren 1977, str. 1-37; Simon 1990, str. 147.23 Bremmer 1979, str. 9-10; Fletcher 2014, str. 211.24 Turcan 1996, str. 44-49.25 CIL 3, 2095 = CIL 3, 8583 = CIL 11, *00642*9 (Sa-

lona): C(aius) Clodius Felix / IIIIIIvir Aug(ustalis) / v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et / Clodiae Primogenae / filiae / posterisque suis. Sevir Augustal je i oslobođenik Gaj Cezije Amarant s natpisa CIL 3, 8786, čija je žena Blanda oslobođenica nekog Publija Klodija: C(aius) Caesius C(ai) l(ibertus) / Amarant(us) IIIIIIvir / Aug(ustalis) v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et Clodiae / P(ubli) l(ibertae) Bland[ae] uxori et / Caesiae Lepidillae / defunctae annor(um) / trium et / C(aio) Caesio C(ai)

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

148

Virgil and Livy, writers of the Augustan era, revitalized the legend of Cybele’s arrival in Rome.23 Later, when Emperor Claudius (whose ancestor was a member of the Senate delegation which introduced the goddess Cybele to Rome, while Claudia Quinta was the main protagonist in a renowned story about the bringing the Goddess to Italy) demonstrated an interest in the Metroac cult, this inevitably led to its great popular-ization in the Empire.24 The drivers of this ideological and political trend in the municipalities were families whose wealth was reflected, among other things, in the fact that they provided respected freedmen who were elected to the seviri Augustales. An example is the Clodii from Salona. It is difficult to ascertain the precise link between the bearers of this gentilicium to the several dozen inscriptions from Salona which mention men and women, municipal magistrates and freedmen (some were seviri Augustales),25 but their numbers reflect their significance. This family was the eponym for the Metroac cognatio in Salona (cognatio Clodiorum) which was mentioned in inscription CIL 3, 8687, installed prior to 42 AD.26 This cognatio was

23 Bremmer 1979, pp. 9-10; Fletcher 2014, p. 211.24 Turcan 1996, pp. 44-49.25 CIL 3, 2095 = CIL 3, 8583 = CIL 11, *00642*9 (Sa-

lona): C(aius) Clodius Felix / IIIIIIvir Aug(ustalis) / v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et / Clodiae Primogenae / filiae / posterisque suis. The sevir Augustalis was the freed-man Gaius Caesius Amarantus from inscription CIL 3, 8786, whose wife Blanda was a freedwoman of a cer-tain Publius Clodius: C(aius) Caesius C(ai) l(ibertus) / Amarant(us) IIIIIIvir / Aug(ustalis) v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et Clodiae / P(ubli) l(ibertae) Bland[ae] uxori et / Cae-siae Lepidillae / defunctae annor(um) / trium et / C(aio) Caesio C(ai) f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Vindici / aed(ili) IIIIvir(o) i(ure) d(icundo) et / Corneliae P(ubli) f(iliae) Clementillae uxori. Based on its epigraphic traits and the tectonics of the grave altar (oblong rectangle), the inscription dates to Hadrian’s time. Cambi 2005, p. 88.

26 CIL 3, 8687: m]iles leg(ionis) VI[I ---] / [---] Veneri don[um] / [no]m(ine) cognation[is] / [Cl]odior(um) CVI[. The edge of the broken-off inscription comes im-mediately after the numerical designation of the legion, so that there was no space for any of the unit’s epithets. Neither of the two sixth legions (Ferrata and Victrix) can be considered, because they were posted in distant provinces during the Principate, and here an unnamed active soldier was mentioned. Legio VIII Augusta, al-though it had been stationed in Dalmatia (or at least one of its contingents) at the end of the 1st c. or the very beginning of the 2nd c., it cannot be considered be-cause there is no space for its epithet AVG(usta). Legio VII was stationed in Tilurium sometime in last years of Augustus’ reign; it provided a series of soldiers whose monuments were discovered in Salona, so this is a

i značenje. Obitelj je eponim metroačke kognacije u Saloni (cognatio Clodiorum) koja se spominje na nat-pisu CIL 3, 8687, podignutom prije 42. godine.26 Vje-rojatno je ta kognacija spomenuta i na natpisu ILJug 3, 2052, jer je za zamjenu are u svetištu Velikih Majki i njezino proširenje Publius Safinius Filucinus, sin (Kibeline?) sacerdote Terencije trebao dopuštenje od Gaja Klodija Gracila.27 Iz obilate evidencije vidljivo je da se Salona postupno razvila u važno metroačko središte, s brojnom populacijom sljedbenika koja je omogućila strukturiranje institucija poput kognacije i arhigalata.28 Znamo li da su oko sredine 1. st. u Saloni izabirani i seviri augustali koji su Klodijevci,29 smi-jemo pretpostaviti da je u Saloni rano uspostavljena sprega između metroačkoga i carskoga kulta, čime bi glavni grad provincije Dalmacije bio na vrhu vala tog trenda. Takav su razvoj u najvećoj mjeri određivali donositelji takvih ideja: misionari, pripadnici familiae Caesaris u Saloni i namjesnici provincije od kojih su mnogi bili u središnjem rimskom tijelu sodales Au-gustales, radi čega im je jedna od temeljnih zadaća

f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Vindici / aed(ili) IIIIvir(o) i(ure) d(icundo) et / Corneliae P(ubli) f(iliae) Clementillae uxori. Natpis je prema epigrafičkim osobinama natpisa i tektonici nadgrobne are (izduženi kvadar) iz Hadrija-nova doba. Cambi 2005, str. 88.

26 CIL 3, 8687: m]iles leg(ionis) VI[I ---] / [---] Veneri don[um] / [no]m(ine) cognation[is] / [Cl]odior(um) CVI[. Rub ulomljenog natpisa dolazi odmah nakon brojčane oznake legije tako da nema mjesta ni za kakav epitet postrojbe. U obzir ne dolazi jedna od dvije šeste legije (Ferrata i Victrix) jer u doba principata borave u udaljenim provincijama, a ovdje se navodi neime-novani aktivni vojnik. Legio VIII Augusta, premda je boravila u Dalmaciji (barem jedno njezino odjeljenje) krajem 1. st. ili na samom početku 2. ne dolazi u obzir jer nema mjesta za njezin epitet AVG(usta). Legio VII boravi u Tiluriju negdje od zadnjih godina Augustove vlasti; dala je niz vojnika čiji su spomenici pronađeni u Saloni pa je uvjerljiv kandidat za restituciju, pogoto-vo jer je epitet C(laudia) P(ia) F(idelis) dobila tek 42. godine.

27 ILJug 3, 2052: Matrib(us) Mag(nis) / sacrum P(ublius) Safinius Filuci/nus Terentiae sacerdotis f(ilius) / aram supstituit(!) idem ampl(iavit) / sibi et cognatio[ni suae] / permissu C(ai) Clodi Grac[ilis].

28 Medini 1982; Karković Takalić 2012, str. 67; Bekavac 2013, str. 202.

29 ILJug 3, 2093: [---] / signifer(i) / leg(ionis) VII C(laudiae) P(iae) F(idelis) / C(aius) Clodius Felix / lib(ertus) / IIIIIIvir Aug(ustalis). Patron oslobođenika Gaja Klodija Feliksa, sevir Augustalis, bio je nepoznati signifer sedme legije CPF, evidentno neki Caius Clo-dius čije ime nije sačuvano. Stoga treba upozoriti na natpis CIL 3, 8687, na kojem se spominje cognatio Clodiorum.


149

Sl. 2. Građevinski natpis sevira augustala Lucija Stalija, Arheološki muzej u Splitu (foto: Ž. Miletić)Fig. 2. Architectural inscription of the sevir Augusta-lis Lucius Stallius, Archaeological Museum in Split (photo: Ž. Miletić)

probably also mentioned in inscription ILJug 3, 2052, because Publius Safinius Filucinus, the son of a sac-erdos (of Cybele?) Terentia, required permission from Gaius Clodius Gracilis to replace an altar in the shrine of the Magna Mater and have it expanded.27 From the abundant evidence it is apparent that Salona gradually grew into an important Metroac centre, with a high number of adherents who facilitated the formation of institutions such as cognatii and archigallates.28 Knowing that seviri Augustales who were Clodii were also elected at around the mid-1st century,29 then we may assume that a bond between the Metroac and imperial cults had been established in Salona rather early, so that the capital of the province of Dalmatia was at the crest of this trend’s wave. Such a develop-ment was largely dictated by those who brought such ideas: missionaries, members of the familia Caesaris in Salona and provincial consuls, of whom many were members of the central Roman order, the sodales Au-gustales, so that one of their fundamental tasks was to popularize the imperial cult.

An inscription on the construction of a temple to the Magna Mater was found in the territory of Tragu-rium in the western periphery of the Salona ager, which was a vow by the spouses (both obviously freed slaves), the sevir Augustalis Lucius Stallius and Stallia Callirhoe and their children (Fig. 2).30 The en-tire undertaking had a private character and did not provide any descriptions of the “official” relationship between the Metroac and imperial cults. Even so, due to the immensity of the task based on obligations to the world of the gods, the organizations of freed Augustales and Metroac believers within a cognatio

credible candidate for restoration, particularly since it acquired the epithet C(laudia) P(ia) F(idelis) only in 42 AD.

27 ILJug 3, 2052: Matrib(us) Mag(nis) / sacrum P(ublius) Safinius Filuci/nus Terentiae sacerdotis f(ilius) / aram supstituit(!) idem ampl(iavit) / sibi et cognatio[ni suae] / permissu C(ai) Clodi Grac[ilis].

28 Medini 1982; Karković Takalić 2012, p. 67; Bekavac 2013, p. 202.

29 ILJug 3, 2093: [---] / signifer(i) / leg(ionis) VII C(laudiae) P(iae) F(idelis) / C(aius) Clodius Felix / lib(ertus) / IIIIIIvir Aug(ustalis). The former owner and patron of the freedman Gaius Clodius Felix, a sevir Augustalis, was an unidentified signifer of the seventh legion CPF, evidently a certain Caius Clodius whose name had not been preserved. Thus, inscription CIL 3, 8687, mentioning the cognatio Clodiorum, is notewor-thy.

30 CIL 3, 2676 = CIL 3, 9707 = CCCA-6, 152 (Traguri-um): L(ucius) Stallius / Secundus se[vir] / Aug(ustalis) et Stallia Callirhoe / uxor cum liberis aedem / Matri Magnae voto / suscepto fecerunt s(ua) p(ecunia).

na dužnosti u provinciji bila popularizacija carskoga kulta.

Na zapadnom rubu salonitanskog agera, na teri-toriju Tragurija pronađen je natpis o izgradnji hra-ma Velike Majke, na što su se zavjetovali supružnici (očito suoslobođenici) sevir Augustalis Lucije Stalije i Stalija Kaliroja te njihova djeca (sl. 2).30 Cijeli je pothvat privatnog karaktera i ne opisuje “službeni” odnos između metroačkoga i carskog kulta. Unatoč tome, radi veličine pothvata utemeljenog na ugovor-nim odnosima sa svijetom bogova, sigurno su organi-zacije oslobođeničkih augustala i metroačkih vjernika unutar kognacija povezane u jedinstvenu interesnu stranku za potrebu izgradnje hrama.

Član još jedne važne salonitanske obitelji je ma-gistrat Tit Vetije, uglednik kojemu počasni spomenik CIL 3, 2087 podiže salonitanski kolegij fabra. Na istoj bazi, na suprotnoj strani, bio je uklesan i natpis ispod statue Tita Flavija Agrikole (CIL 3, 2026). Konfron-tacijom dva natpisa i epigrafičkim analizama zaklju-čeno je da je Vetijev spomenik podignut početkom 2. st., možda u hadrijanovskom razdoblju: T(ito) Vettio / Augustali / decurioni / colon(iae) Salon(itanae) / quaestori / aedili IIvir(o) / iure dic(undo) praef(ecto)

30 CIL 3, 2676 = CIL 3, 9707 = CCCA-6, 152 (Traguri-um): L(ucius) Stallius / Secundus se[vir] / Aug(ustalis) et Stallia Callirhoe / uxor cum liberis aedem / Matri Magnae voto / suscepto fecerunt s(ua) p(ecunia).

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

150

Sl. 3. Natpis sa sarkofaga Gaja Albucija Menipa, Arheološki muzej u Splitu (foto: Ž. Miletić)Fig. 3. Inscription from the sarcophagus of Gaius Albucius Menippus, Archaeological Museum in Split (photo: Ž. Miletić)

were certainly connected into a single interest group for the needs of temple construction.

The member of yet another important Salonitan family was the magistrate Titus Vettius, a dignitary to whom an honorary monument, CIL 3, 2087, was raised by Salona’s carpenters’ guild, the collegium fabrum. On that same base, on the opposite side, an inscription was also carved beneath the statue of Titus Flavius Agricola (CIL 3, 2026). A comparison of the two inscriptions and epigraphic analyses have led to the conclusion that the monument to Vettius was raised at the beginning of the 2nd century, perhaps during the reign of Hadrian: T(ito) Vettio / Augustali / decurioni / colon(iae) Salon(itanae) / quaestori / aedili IIvir(o) / iure dic(undo) praef(ecto) / et patrono coll(egii) / fabr(um) ob merita / eius coll(egium) fabr(um) / ex aere conlato.31

In Salona there are no examples of citizens as seviri Augustales, as appeared in several isolated points in It-aly and Narona.32 So here the word Augustalis should be seen as the cognomen of Vettius, which has been confirmed by the fact that it was also borne by other Vettii in Salona.33 The cognomen may have emerged because Titus’ father (or grandfather) had performed

31 The paper delivered by Silvija Bekavac on the topic “Postolje počasnog spomenika Tita Flavija Agrikole” [The pedestal of the honorary monument of Titus Fla-vius Agricola] from the scholarly seminar Antiquitatis sollemnia antidoron Mate Suić, held in Zadar in 2015, will soon be published in the proceedings.

32 Citizen seviri Augustales appeared in inscriptions from Verona (CIL 5, 3272; CIL 5, 3389), Brixia (CIL 5, 4393; CIL 5, 4165), Praeneste (CIL 14, 3014) and Na-rona (CIL 3, 1851).

33 CIL 3, 2102.

/ et patrono coll(egii) / fabr(um) ob merita / eius coll(egium) fabr(um) / ex aere conlato.31

U Saloni nema primjera da bi građani bili seviri augustali kao što se to javlja u nekoliko izoliranih to-čaka u Italiji i Naroni.32 Stoga riječ Augustalis treba shvatiti kao Vetijev kognomen, što je potvrđeno či-njenicom da ga nose i neki drugi Vetijevci u Saloni.33 Kognomen je možda nastao jer su Titov otac (ili djed) vršili tu uglednu oslobođeničku dužnost pa bi Augu-stalov predak teoretski mogao biti Tit Vetije Fortunat, salonitanski augustal zabilježen na nadgrobnom nat-pisu CIL 3, 2104 = CIL 3, 8588: T(ito) Vettio / T(iti) l(iberto) Fortunato / Aug(ustali) / Vettia Agape / ma-rito b(ene) m(erenti). Sevir augustal bio je i C. Vettius Eutyches, očito iz druge loze.34

Nositelj religijskog života bila je i važna familia Albucia. Pater familias Caius Albucius Menippus za-bilježen je, zajedno s dvojicom sinova, ženom i njezi-nim bratom na sarkofagu iz njihovog grobnog areala na zapadnoj salonitanskoj nekropoli (sl. 3).35 S iste grobne parcele (hortus) je i stela dva oslobođenika Albucija.36 Oba spomenika datirana su u trajansko-

31 Izlaganje Silvije Bekavac o temi Postolje počasnog spomenika Tita Flavija Agrikole, sa znanstvenog skupa Antiquitatis sollemnia antidoron Mate Suić, održanog 2015. u Zadru, uskoro će biti tiskano u zborniku rado-va.

32 Građanski seviri augustali javljaju se na natpisima iz Verone (CIL 5, 3272; CIL 5, 3389), Briksije (CIL 5, 4393; CIL 5, 4165), Prenesta (CIL 14, 3014) i Narone (CIL 3, 1851).

33 CIL 3, 2102.34 CIL 3, 2103.35 CIL 3, 2074; Cambi 1969, str. 99-100.36 CIL 3, 2166; Cambi 1969, str. 100-104.


151

Sl. 4. Votivna ara Gaja Albucija Restituta, Arheološki muzej u Splitu (foto: Ž. Miletić)Fig. 4. Votive altar of Gaius Albucius Restitutus, Archaeological Museum in Split (photo: Ž. Miletić)

some respected service as freedmen, so that theoreti-cally Augustalis’ ancestor may have been Titus Vet-tius Fortunatus, a Salonitan Augustalis recorded in funerary inscription CIL 3, 2104 = CIL 3, 8588: T(ito) Vettio / T(iti) l(iberto) Fortunato / Aug(ustali) / Vettia Agape / marito b(ene) m(erenti). C. Vettius Eutyches, obviously from a different lineage, was also a sevir Augustalis.34

The familia Albucia was also an important driver of religious life. The pater familias, Gaius Albucius Menippus, was recorded, together with his two sons, his wife and her brother, on the sarcophagus from their grave plot in the western necropolis of Salona (Fig. 3).35 The stele of two Albucia freedmen is from the same grave plot (hortus).36 Both monuments date to the Trajanic-Hadrianic era.37 The men in the fam-ily were decurions and magistrates in Salona and Issa. Since the gentilicium Albucius was rather common (it was very widespread in northern Italy and Pompeii, but it also appeared over a wide area from Aquitania and Britannia in the west to Pisidia in the east), and even based on the cognomen Menippus it is practi-cally impossible to determine the origin of Albucius. Gaius Albucius Publius from inscription CIL 3, 2100 was a sevir Augustalis who was not interred in the aforementioned grave area, but rather in a plot given to him by a certain Flavius Sozos.38 Judging by the gentilicium Flavius and the expression defunctae annorum, the inscription did not appear prior to the middle of the 2nd century, which is the period in which the concept of Augustalis pertained to reverence for living emperors of the Adoptive era. In inscriptions AE 2014, 1027 (Podvršje) and CIL 3, 1961 (Salona) and those from the Albucius hortus in Salona, Albucii appear as homonymous individuals. Although repeti-tion of the praenomen Caius among the Albucii can render the reconstruction of mutual relations between individuals difficult, it would appear that two inscrip-tions refer to the same person, because they have the same cognomen, i.e., the former slave name Resti-tutus, and the Syrian gods mentioned in an architec-tural inscription and on a votive altar are a common denominator (Fig. 4).39 Since the Albucii, judging by

34 CIL 3, 2103.35 CIL 3, 2074; Cambi 1969, pp. 99-100.36 CIL 3, 2166; Cambi 1969, pp. 100-104.37 Cambi 1969, pp. 101-104.38 Dibus Manibus / Tulliae Ianuari(a)e / defu(n)ct(ae)

annor(um) XL / C(aius) Albucius Publius sexvir / Augusta[l(lis)] coniugi rarissimae / et sibi posuit / lo-cus datus a Fl(avio) Sozonte.

39 AE 2014, 1027 (Podvršje): C(aius) Albucius C(ai) l(ibertus) Restitutus / IIIIIIvir et Flavialis / dis Syris templum ampliavit et / a solo sua i<m=N>pensa fecit;

hadrijansko vrijeme.37 Muškarci u obitelji su dekuri-oni i magistrati u Saloni i Isi. Kako je gentilicij Albu-cius jako čest (masovan u sjevernoj Italiji i Pompeji-ma, ali se javlja i na širokom prostoru od Akvitanije i Britanije na zapadu do Pizidije na istoku), na temelju kognomena Menippus praktično je nemoguće odredi-ti podrijetlo Albucija. Gaj Albucije Publije s natpisa CIL 3, 2100 je sevir Augustalis koji nije ukopan na spomenutom grobnom arealu, nego na mjestu koje mu je dao neki Flavius Sozos.38 Sudeći po gentilnom imenu Flavius i izrazu defunctae annorum, natpis nije nastao prije sredine drugog stoljeća, što je razdoblje u kojem se pojam Augustalis odnosi na štovanje živućih careva adoptivnog razdoblja. Na natpisima AE 2014, 1027 (Podvršje) i CIL 3, 1961 (Salona) i onima s horta Albucija u Saloni, Albuciji se javljaju kao homoni-mne osobe. Premda repetiranje prenomena Caius kod Albucija može otežati rekonstrukciju međusobnih odnosa pojedinaca, čini se da je na dvama natpisima riječ o jednoj te istoj osobi, jer nose isti kognomen, tj.

37 Cambi 1969, str. 101-104.38 Dibus Manibus / Tulliae Ianuari(a)e / defu(n)ct(ae)

annor(um) XL / C(aius) Albucius Publius sexvir / Augusta[l(lis)] coniugi rarissimae / et sibi posuit / lo-cus datus a Fl(avio) Sozonte.

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

152

Sl. 5. Natpis Fescenije Astice i Tita Junija Fausta s Klisa, Arheološki muzej u Splitu (foto: Ž. Miletić)Fig. 5. Inscription of Fescenia Astice and Titus Junius Faustus from Klis, Archaeological Museum in Split (photo: Ž. Miletić)

the concentration of inscriptions, were a family cen-tred in Salona, then the find site of the first inscription in the village of Podvršje, in the territory of Roman-era Enona, is the result of a move from the capital city.40 Private munificence to expand the shrines of Syrian deities, a pantheon whose traces in Dalmatia are exceptionally rare, points to missionary activity. On the inscription from Podvršje, Caius Albucius Restitutus is described as sevir et Flavialis, which we maintain is a reference to two different posts. One was the post of sevir, and the other (sevir) Flavialis, which was analogous to sevir Augustalis, only tied to a new imperial dynasty. The titles are absent on the altar from Salona because Albucius probably had not yet acquired them.

In inscription ILJug 3, 2003 found in the pastoral landscape on the slopes beneath Klis and Markezina greda, it states that Fescenia Astice with her compan-ion and husband Titus [---] Faustus, in compliance with Jupiter’s imperial command restored with her own funds a temple of this god and his company of forest deities of spring nymphs with Silvanus, as well as forest nymphs with Silvanus (Fig. 5).41 The formula consentio deorum in this context possibly provides some grounds to speculate about a possible Delma-taean pantheon which had experienced an interpreta-tio romana (Tacitus, Germania, 43).42 Astice, whose gentilicium Fescenius had also been noted by Šašel Kos only in Ostia, was the protagonist of this story, because she had communicated with the god, while her husband, the sevir and sevir Augustalis Faustus, only accompanied her. 43

Two inscriptions from Salona in the province of Dalmatia may be tied to the same person, Publius An-teius Herma:

CIL 3, 1961 (Salona): Dis Syris / C(aius) Albucius / C(ai) l(ibertus) Restitutus.

40 This opinion is shared by Miroslav Glavičić, who ref-erenced the inscription from Podrvršje at the scholarly seminar on the archaeology of the Eastern Adriatic held in Zadar in 2013.

41 ILJug 3, 2003 = AE 1994, 1346; Glavičić 2002, cat. no. 199; Jadrić-Kučan 2011, p. 335, cat. no. 118; Beka-vac 2011, pp. 161-162; Cambi 2013, pp. 18-21: [Ex i]mperio domini Iovis / [Opt]imi Max(imi) iussit sibi aedem / [fie]ri cum suo consentio deor(um) dearum/[q(ue) si]lvestr(i)um Nymphis fontanis cum Sil/[van]o Nymphis silvestrium cum Silvano Fe/[sce]nia Astice cum suo pare coniuge T(ito) / [---]o Fausto VIvir(o) et Aug(ustali) a solo restituit.

42 The expressions consentio deorum and consessui deo-rum dearumque also appear in two inscriptions from Salona, CIL 3, 1935, and CIL 3, 1061.

43 Šašel Kos 1994, p. 207.

bivše robovsko ime Restititus, a zajednički nazivnik su i sirijski bogovi spomenuti na građevinskom nat-pisu i votivnoj ari (sl. 4).39 Kako su Albuciji, sudeći po koncentraciji natpisa, obitelj sa sjedištem u Saloni, onda je mjesto nalaza prvog natpisa u selu Podvršju na teritoriju antičke Enone posljedica preseljenja iz glavnoga grada.40 Privatna munificijencija proširenja svetišta sirijskih bogova, panteona čiji su tragovi u Dalmaciji iznimno rijetki, ukazuje na misionarsku aktivnost. Na natpisu iz Podvršja Caius Albucius Re-stitutus spominje se kao sevir et Flavialis, što držimo navodom dva različita položaja. Jedan je položaj sevi-ra, a drugi (sevira) flavijala, koji je analogan onom se-vira augustala, samo vezan uz novu carsku dinastiju. Titule su na ari iz Salone izostale jer ih Albucije tada vjerojatno još nije dobio.

Na natpisu ILJug 3, 2003 nađenom u pastoral-nom krajoliku, na padinama ispod Klisa i Markezine grede, navodi se da je Fescenia Astice sa svojim su-družnikom, mužem Titom [---] Faustom, na temelju Jupiterove imperatorske zapovijedi obnovila vlastitim sredstvima hram tog boga i njegovog skupa šumskih bogova izvorskih nimfi sa Silvanom, kao i šumskih

39 AE 2014, 1027(Podvršje): C(aius) Albucius C(ai) l(ibertus) Restitutus / IIIIIIvir et Flavialis / dis Syris templum ampliavit et / a solo sua i<m=N>pensa fecit; CIL 3, 1961 (Salona): Dis Syris / C(aius) Albucius / C(ai) l(ibertus) Restitutus.

40 Ovakvog je mišljenja i Miroslav Glavičić koji je o nat-pisu iz Podrvršja referirao na znanstvenom skupu “Ar-heologija istočnog Jadrana” održanom u Zadru 2013. godine.


153

Sl. 6. Votivni natpis Publija Anteja Herme o izgradnji portika, Arheološki muzej u Splitu (foto: Ž. Miletić)Fig. 6. Votive inscription of Publius Anteius Herma on the construction of a porticus, Archaeological Museum in Split (photo: Ž. Miletić)

nimfi sa Silvanom (sl. 5).41 Formula consentio de-orum u ovom kontekstu eventualno daje osnovu za promišljanje o mogućem delmatskom panteonu koji je doživio interpretatio romana (Tacitus, Germania, 43).42 Astice, za čije je gentilno ime Fescenius Šašel Kos primijetila da se javlja samo još u Ostiji, glavni je akter priče jer je komunicirala s bogom, a njezin muž sevir i sevir augustal Faust samo je u tome prati.43

Dva natpisa iz Salone u provinciji Dalmaciji mož-da se vežu za istu osobu Publija Anteja Herme;

1. I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et / divo Claudio Caesar[i] / Aug(usto) German(ico) trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIIII / P(ublius) Anteius P(ubli) Antei Syntrophi l(ibertus) / Herma IIIIIIvir et Aug(ustalis) / porticum v(oto) s(oluto) l(ibens) m(erito) loc(o) accep(to) d(ecurionum) d(ecreto).44

2. ---] / […]ma VIvir et A[ug(ustalis)] / [cur]iam faciundam / [c]uravit.45 Natpis je dosta oštećen te su se od imena sevira i augustala sačuvala samo dva zadnja slova [Her?]MA. Priklanjamo se nadopuni

41 ILJug 3, 2003 = AE 1994, 1346; Glavičić 2002, kat. br. 199; Jadrić-Kučan 2011, str. 335, kat. br. 118; Bekavac 2011, str. 161-162; Cambi 2013, str. 18-21: [Ex i]mperio domini Iovis / [Opt]imi Max(imi) iussit sibi aedem / [fie]ri cum suo consentio deor(um) dea-rum/[q(ue) si]lvestr(i)um Nymphis fontanis cum Sil/[van]o Nymphis silvestrium cum Silvano Fe/[sce]nia Astice cum suo pare coniuge T(ito) / [---]o Fausto VIvir(o) et Aug(ustali) a solo restituit.

42 Izrazi consentio deorum i consessui deorum dearumque javljaju se još na natpisima iz Salone CIL 3, 1935, od-nosno CIL 3, 1061.

43 Šašel Kos 1994, str. 207.44 CIL 3, 1947 = CIL 3, 8566; Glavičić 2002, str. 339, kat.

br. 197.45 ILJug 3, 2114; Glavičić 2002, str. 340, kat. br. 198.

1. I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) et / divo Claudio Caesar[i] / Aug(usto) German(ico) trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIIII / P(ublius) Anteius P(ubli) Antei Syntrophi l(ibertus) / Herma IIIIIIvir et Aug(ustalis) / porticum v(oto) s(oluto) l(ibens) m(erito) loc(o) accep(to) d(ecurionum) d(ecreto).44

2. ---] / […]ma VIvir et A[ug(ustalis)] / [cur]iam faciundam / [c]uravit.45 The inscription is rather dam-aged because only the last two letters of the name of the sevir and Augustalis, [Her?]MA, have been pre-served. We shall endeavour to fill in the final line ac-cording to which the person saw to the construction of the municipal council hall.

The first inscription has been dated using the four-teenth received tribunal authority of the divine Clau-dius in 54 AD, immediately after the emperor’s death, when Publius Anteius Herma erected a porticus, for which the construction site was approved by decision of the decurion council of Salona (Fig. 6). We can see that there were seviri and Augustales in Salona in the mid-1st century, and that as such the Hermae were in-volved in state propaganda and the imperial cult in the repertoire of public activities. The date and character of the munificence indicate that Publius Anteius Syn-trophus, Herma’s patron, was himself a freedman of Senator Publius Anteius Rufus, the provincial legate and supreme imperial exponent in Dalmatia.

The governor’s name appeared in inscriptions from Dalmatia dated to the period from 50 to 51/52 AD.46 Two of them, partially preserved, were from the military centre at Burnum. Based on the name of Emperor Claudius, the first architectural inscription CIL 3, 14321,16 = CIL 3, 14987,1 = ILJug 3, 2809 has been dated to 51-52 AD,47 while the second, ILJug 3, 2810, to 50 AD.48 They denoted the completion of major construction financed from the imperial fiscus. One of the structures was probably a new principia (headquarters building), built atop the older, smaller

44 CIL 3, 1947 = CIL 3, 8566; Glavičić 2002, p. 339, cat. no. 197.

45 ILJug 3, 2114; Glavičić 2002, p. 340, cat. no. 198.46 Jagenteufel 1958, pp. 34-37; Šašel Kos 1994, p. 207.47 [Ti(berius) Claudius Drusi] / f(ilius) Ca[es]ar

Aug(ustus) G[erman(icus)] / pont[if]ex maximu[s tr(ibunicia) p(otestate) XI] / imp(erator) XX[3] co(n)s(ul) V censo[r p(ater) p(atriae)] / P(ublio) Ante[io R]ufo leg(ato) p[ro pr(aetore)] / [f(aciendum)] c(uravit).

48 [Ti(berius) Claudius Drusi] / [f(ilius) Caesar Aug(ustus) German(icus)] / [pontif(ex) maximus tr(ibunicia) p(otestate) X] / [co(n)s(ul) IIII] imp(erator) XXI p(ater) p(atriae) c[ensor] / [P(ublio) A]nteio Ru[fo leg(ato)] / [Aug(usti) pr(o) p]r(aetore) le[g(io) XI C(laudia) P(ia) F(idelis)].

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

154

principia in the legionary camp.49 At that time, Legio XI was stationed in it; it bore the designation Clau-dia pia fidelis as a reward for the loyalty it demon-strated during the anti-imperial conspiracy plotted by the Dalmatian provincial consul Lucius Arruntius Ca-millus Scribonianus and a group of conspirators from Rome in 42 AD.50 The other imperial architectural in-scription was probably installed either on the military amphitheatre of Claudius, which was later expanded during Vespasian’s reign, as recorded by the instal-lation of an imperial inscription, or on the building of the military training ground (campus), for which the date of construction was ascertained by means of roof tiles bearing the stamp LEG XI CPF and modest traces of the foundations of walls beneath the monu-mental remains of a subsequent similar building from the end of the 1st century, roofed with tegulae bear-ing the stamp LEG VIII AVG.51 The third inscription, from Oneum, in the eastern periphery of the immense Salonitan territory, featuring the emperor’s name in the ablative case, dates to 51 or 52 AD, and obviously also marks the erection of some structure, with Pub-lius Anteius Rufus seeing to the completion of the en-tire project.52 Since the micro-location of the find was the hamlet of Baučić, near Omiš, at the position of an imperial shrine, then it is logical to assume that this activity was tied to it.53 Why underscore this informa-tion on Claudius’ legate Publius Anteius Rufus? Be-cause we wish to stress that during his term of office in the province he was focused on major state infra-structure projects. He was close to the imperial circle, a friend of the fourth and final wife of Claudius (since 49 AD) Agrippina the Younger (Agrippina Minor), for which he should have been appointed consul to the more prestigious Syria, but he was outmanoeuvred in political intrigues.54 The evidence of officials who served with the consuls in the province of Dalmatia during the 1st century is rather modest, in contrast to the relatively numerous later confirmations. One official was confirmed prior to 42 AD from among

49 Reisch 1913, pp. 123-128.50 Cambi 2009, p. 69.51 Cambi et al. 2006; Miletić 2010, pp. 136-137; Glavičić,

Miletić 2012, p. 169.52 [Ti(berio)] Cla[udio] / [Drusi f(ilio)] Ca<e=I>sa[re

Aug(usto)] / [Germ(anico) pon]tifice m[aximo] / [trib(unicia) pot(estate)] XI imp(eratore) XX[IIII] / [co(n)s(ule) V] censore p(atre) [p(atriae)] / [curante P(ublio)] Anteio Ru[fo] / [leg(ato) Au]g(usti) [-----].

53 Cambi 1997, pp. 77-78; Glavičić, Miletić 2008, p. 420.

54 Tacitus, Annales, 13,22: Syria P. Anteio destinata, set variis mox artibus elusus ad postremum in urbe reten-tus est. Jagenteufel 1958, p. 26.

predzadnjeg retka prema kojem se osoba pobrinula za izgradnju gradske vijećnice.

Prvi natpis datiran je četrnaestim primljenim tri-bunskim ovlastima božanskog Klaudija u 54. godinu, neposredno nakon careve smrti, kada Publije Antej Herma podiže porticus, čije je mjesto izgradnje odo-breno odlukom dekurionskog vijeća Salone (sl. 6). Vidimo da sredinom 1. st. u Saloni postoje i seviri i augustali, te da su Hermi kao takvom državna pro-paganda i carski kult u repertoaru javnih aktivnosti. Datum i karakter munificijencije ukazuju da je Publije Antej Sintrop, Hermin patron, i sam oslobođenik se-natora Publija Anteja Rufa, legata provincije i vrhov-nog carskog eksponenta u Dalmaciji.

Guvernerovo ime javlja se na natpisima iz Dal-macije datiranim u razdoblju od 50. do 51./52.46 Dva od njih, parcijalno sačuvana, su iz vojnog središta Burnum. Na temelju imena cara Klaudija prvi gra-đevinski natpis CIL 3, 14321,16 = CIL 3, 14987,1 = ILJug 3, 2809 datiran je u 51.–52. godinu,47 a drugi ILJug 3, 2810 u 50. godinu.48 Označavaju završetak važnih izgradnji financiranih iz carskog fiska. Jed-na od tih građevina vjerojatno je bio novi principij, nastao iznad starijeg, manjeg principija u legijskom logoru.49 U njemu je tada bila stacionirana XI. legija, koja je naziv Claudia pia fidelis dobila kao nagradu za pokazanu lojalnost tijekom protucarske urote na-mjesnika provincije Dalmacije Lucija Aruncija Ka-mila Skribonijana i skupine zavjerenika iz Rima 42. godine.50 Drugi carski građevinski natpis vjerojatno je bio postavljen ili na Klaudijev vojni amfiteatar, koji je kasnije dograđen u doba Vespazijana, što je obilježe-no podizanjem carskog natpisa, ili na zgradu vojnog vježbališta (campus), čije je vrijeme podizanja usta-novljeno preko nalaza krovnih crjepova s pečatom LEG XI CPF i skromnih tragova temelja zidova ispod monumentalnih ostataka kasnije istovrsne građevine s kraja 1. st., zakrovljene tegulama s pečatom LEG

46 Jagenteufel 1958, str. 34-37; Šašel Kos 1994, str. 207.47 [Ti(berius) Claudius Drusi] / f(ilius) Ca[es]ar

Aug(ustus) G[erman(icus)] / pont[if]ex maximu[s tr(ibunicia) p(otestate) XI] / imp(erator) XX[3] co(n)s(ul) V censo[r p(ater) p(atriae)] / P(ublio) Ante[io R]ufo leg(ato) p[ro pr(aetore)] / [f(aciendum)] c(uravit).

48 [Ti(berius) Claudius Drusi] / [f(ilius) Caesar Aug(ustus) German(icus)] / [pontif(ex) maximus tr(ibunicia) p(otestate) X] / [co(n)s(ul) IIII] imp(erator) XXI p(ater) p(atriae) c[ensor] / [P(ublio) A]nteio Ru[fo leg(ato)] / [Aug(usti) pr(o) p]r(aetore) le[g(io) XI C(laudia) P(ia) F(idelis)].

49 Reisch 1913, str. 123-128. 50 Cambi 2009, str. 69.


155

the ranks of Legio XI, while among the roughly one hundred known inscriptions of Legio VII during its stay in the province of Dalmatia up to around 56 AD, there is not a single confirmation of any members of this unit serving in the consul’s office.55 Based on the facts from other provinces, Rankov stresses that the posts of frumentarius, speculator, beneficiarius and cornicularius had to have existed even in the early imperial Dalmatian staff office.56 We believe that the officium of the provincial consul in Dalmatia, besides officials detached from military units may have also been staffed by members of the consul’s familiae and his clients and friends, i.e., that Publius Anteius Rufus may have had a considerable number of freedmen as support staff, such as Publius Anteius Syntrophus and his freedman Herma, regardless of whether he was headquartered in one of the two military camps (Bur-num or Tilurium) or in Salona, the provincial capital. Freedmen, particularly members of the familia Cae-saris in Salona, may have also served as staff mem-bers in the financial procurator’s office.57

Membership in a family whose pater is an imperial amicus explains why the elite freedmen were so well-apprised and responded rapidly to important events in their role of mediators between the imperial circle and local municipal officials. Such campaigns led the population of the province to accept certain “facts,” such as the emperors as favourites of the gods, as well as Herma and freedmen of his rank as the favourites of the divine emperors, whereby even the Salonitan commoners (plebs) were encompassed in this desir-able circle. Thus the freedmen were seen as examples of what we today refer to as achieving the “American dream.” Care for promotion of the state and its cult and imperial propaganda presented Herma with op-portunities for personal advancement and a high rank in Salona’s social hierarchy through the posts of sevir and sevir Augustalis.

3. The network of trusted imperial freedmen based on examples from Salona and Italy

CIL 3, 2097 (p 2135) = CIL 3, 8585 proves the presence of members of familia Caesaris in Salona: C(aius) Iulius Sceptus Admeti Aug(usti) lib(erti) [l]ib(ertus) IIIIIIvir Augustal(is) v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et / Iuliae Coetonidi uxori / C(aio) Iulio C(ai) f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Admeto f(ilio) / C(aio) I(ulio) C(ai) f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Aquilae f(ilio) / L(ucio) Iulio C(ai) f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Scepto f(ilio) / Iuliae C(ai) f(iliae)

55 Matijević 2015, p. 162.56 Rankov 1999, pp. 17-21.57 Weaver 1965; Austin, Rankov 1998, p. 148.

VIII AVG.51 Treći natpis, iz Oneja, na istočnom rubu velikoga salonitanskog teritorija, s carevim imenom u ablativu iz 51. ili 52. godine, očito također obilježa-va podizanje neke konstrukcije, a za obavljanje cijele radnje pobrinuo se Publije Antej Ruf.52 Kako je mi-krolokacija nalaza omiški zaselak Baučić, na položaju carskog svetišta, onda je logično pretpostaviti da je uz njega bila vezana ta aktivnost.53 Zašto navodimo te podatke o Klaudijevom legatu Publiju Anteju Rufu? Želimo naglasiti da je on tijekom svog mandata u provinciji usredotočen na velike državne građevinske zahvate. Blizak je carskom krugu, prijatelj četvrte i posljednje Klaudijeve žene (od. 49. godine) Agripine Mlađe (Agrippina Minor), zbog čega je trebao biti i namjesnik prestižne Sirije, ali je izigran u političkim borbama.54 Iznenađujuće skromna je evidencija o ofi-cijalima namjesnika provincije Dalmacije tijekom pr-voga stoljeća, u diskrepanciji prema relativno brojnim kasnijim potvrdama. Jedan je službenik potvrđen prije 42. godine iz redova XI. legije, a među stotinjak po-znatih natpisa VII. legije tijekom boravka u provinciji Dalmaciji do oko godine 56. nema ni jedne potvrde pripadnika te postrojbe u oficiju namjesnika.55 Rankov na temelju faktografije u drugim provincijama ističe da su službe frumentarija, spekulatora, beneficijarija i kornikularija morale postojati i u ranocarskom dalma-tinskom oficiju.56 Pomišljamo da je officium provincij-skih namjesnika u Dalmaciji uz službenike detaširane iz vojnih postrojbi u sastavu mogao imati i pripadnike familiae, klijente i namjesnikove prijatelje, odnosno da je Publije Antej Ruf kao potporu mogao imati veći broj vlastitih oslobođenika, poput Publija Anteja Sin-trofa i njegova oslobođenika Herme, bez obzira je li mu sjedište u jednom od dva vojna logora (Burnum ili Tilurium) ili u Saloni, glavnom gradu provincije. Oslobođenici, pogotovo pripadnici familiae Caesaris u Saloni, mogli su biti osoblje i u uredu financijskog prokuratora.57

51 Cambi et al. 2006; Miletić 2010, str. 136-137; Glavi-čić, Miletić 2012, str. 169.

52 [Ti(berio)] Cla[udio] / [Drusi f(ilio)] Ca<e=I>sa[re Aug(usto)] / [Germ(anico) pon]tifice m[aximo] / [trib(unicia) pot(estate)] XI imp(eratore) XX[IIII] / [co(n)s(ule) V] censore p(atre) [p(atriae)] / [curante P(ublio)] Anteio Ru[fo] / [leg(ato) Au]g(usti) [-----].

53 Cambi 1997, str. 77-78; Glavičić, Miletić 2008, str. 420.

54 Tacitus, Annales, 13,22: Syria P. Anteio destinata, set variis mox artibus elusus ad postremum in urbe reten-tus est. Jagenteufel 1958, str. 26.

55 Matijević 2015, str. 162.56 Rankov 1999, str. 17-21.57 Weaver 1965; Austin, Rankov 1998, str. 148.

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

156

Tro(mentina) Admetidi f(iliae) // C(aio) Iulio |(mulier-is) l(iberto) Tr[iu]mphali f(ilio) / Iuliae C(ai) l(ibertae) Ro[m]anae f(iliae) / Iuliae |(mulieris) l(ibertae) S[ce]psidi f(iliae) / Iuliae |(mulieris) l(ibertae) Pr[im]ae uxori / defun[cta]e // Niso Ti(beri) Claudi Aug(usti) ser(vo) genero / defuncto / in h(oc) m(onumentum) veto aliter ossua / deponi quam Primae et Nisi sunt // in fronte p(edes) XX i[n a]gro p(edes) XXX.

Gaius Julius Sceptus was a freedman of (Gaius Julius) Admetus, a freedman of Emperor Augustus. Sceptus was a sexvir Augustalis, who during his life-time raised a monument to himself and his wife Julia Coetonis. Weaver believes she was a freedwoman and citizen, like her husband.58 However, neither filiation nor libertinus status is not specified, and since her gentilicium, Julia, is the same as her husband’s, this was probably the result of being liberated by the same manumissor. Her husband was a freedman because this is explicitly stated, but at the same time her voting district (tribus) is not mentioned, nor any other indica-tion that it had been adopted subsequently, thus giving her full citizenship. This resembles the marriage of a freedman and freedwoman. With this spouse, Sceptus had four children, i.e., the monument was raised to: his son Gaius Julius Admetus (son of Gaius, i.e., he stated that he was his son twice, which he did for all of this children) enrolled in tribus Tromentina, then his son Gaius Julius Aquilus (son of Gaius) enrolled in tribus Tromentina, then his son Lucius Julius Sceptus (son of Gaius) enrolled in the same voting district, and finally his daughter Julia Admetis (daughter of Gaius), about whom he presumptuously stated that she was enrolled in tribus Tromentina, even though women did not have suffrage. This is followed by the names of three children whom Weaver describes as the chil-dren of an earlier spouse, the deceased Julia Prima, who was mulieris liberta (Caiae liberta i.e., she was freed by a woman). Weaver says of her that she was not an imperial slave and that she had not been freed by the time all three of her children had been born. This is quite likely; as a slave, she could have had children with her future husband who was then still a slave, Sceptus, and her owner was probably Julia, the wife of the imperial freedman Gaius Julius Adme-tus, who had also freed Prima’s daughter Scepsis and her son Triumphalus at the same time that Admetus had freed Romana, yet another daughter of (Julia) Pri-ma, as well as (Gaius Julius) Sceptus, Prima’s future husband. So these children bore the libertinus des-ignation (tied either to the patronus Admetus or the

58 http://alte-geschichte.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/home/Abteilungen/Alte_Geschichte/Mitarbeiter/Eck/Weaver/02_Iulii.pdf (pp. 7-8, no. 7).

Pripadnost familiji čiji je pater carski amicus objaš-njava informiranost i brzinu reakcije elitnih oslobo-đenika na važne događaje, u ulozi medijatora između carskoga kruga i lokalnih municipalnih dužnosnika. Takve akcije dovodile su kod stanovništva provinci-je do prihvaćanja “činjenice” da su, kao što su carevi miljenici bogova, tako i Herma i oslobođenici njego-va ranga miljenici božanskih careva, čime je i saloni-tanski puk (plebs) postajao dio tog poželjnog kruga. Stoga su oslobođenici shvaćani kao primjer onoga što danas zovemo postizanje “američkog sna”. Hermi je briga za državnu promidžbu, kult i imperijalnu propa-gandu omogućila osobnu promociju i visoko pozici-oniranje u društvenoj piramidi Salone kroz dužnosti sevira i sevira augustala.

3. Mreža carskih oslobođeničkih pouzdanika na primjerima iz Salone i Italije

CIL 3, 2097 (p 2135) = CIL 3, 8585 dokazuje na-zočnost pripadnika familiae Caesaris u Saloni: C(aius) Iulius Sceptus Admeti Aug(usti) lib(erti) [l]ib(ertus) IIIIIIvir Augustal(is) v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et / Iuliae Co-etonidi uxori / C(aio) Iulio C(ai) f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Admeto f(ilio) / C(aio) I(ulio) C(ai) f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Aquilae f(ilio) / L(ucio) Iulio C(ai) f(ilio) Tro(mentina) Scepto f(ilio) / Iuliae C(ai) f(iliae) Tro(mentina) Ad-metidi f(iliae) // C(aio) Iulio |(mulieris) l(iberto) Tr[iu]mphali f(ilio) / Iuliae C(ai) l(ibertae) Ro[m]anae f(iliae) / Iuliae |(mulieris) l(ibertae) S[ce]psidi f(iliae) / Iuliae |(mulieris) l(ibertae) Pr[im]ae uxori / defun[cta]e // Niso Ti(beri) Claudi Aug(usti) ser(vo) genero / defuncto / in h(oc) m(onumentum) veto aliter ossua / deponi quam Primae et Nisi sunt // in fronte p(edes) XX i[n a]gro p(edes) XXX.

Caius Iulius Sceptus je oslobođenik (Gaja Julija) Admeta, oslobođenika cara Augusta. Scepto je sexvir Augustalis, koji je za života sebi i živućoj supruzi Ju-liji Ketonidi podigao spomenik. Weaver smatra da je ona slobodna i građanka, što je i njezin suprug.58 Me-đutim, nije navedena ni njezina filijacija ni libertinski status, a kako joj je gentilicij Julija, isti kao i mužev, to je vjerojatno rezultat oslobađanja od istog manumi-sora. Njezin muž je oslobođenik jer to izrijekom kaže, a u isto vrijeme ne donosi svoj glasački okrug (tribus), niti ima drugih naznaka da je kasnije bio adoptiran, čime bi stekao puni građanski status. To sliči na brak oslobođenika i oslobođenice. S tom suprugom Scep-to ima četvero djece, tj. spomenik podiže: sinu Gaju Juliju Admetu (sinu Gaja, tj. dvaput navodi da mu je

58 http://alte-geschichte.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/home/Abteilungen/Alte_Geschichte/Mitarbeiter/Eck/Weaver/02_Iulii.pdf (str. 7-8, br. 7).


157

patrona Julia), all bore the gentilicium Julius, but they did not bear the designation of a voting district because they were not freeborn (as were the children from the second marriage). Only their children, who would be ingenui, could then include the tribus at-tribution.

Also mentioned in the inscription are the deceased Nisus, a slave of Tiberius Claudius, i.e., a member of the familia Caesaris. He probably died during the reign of his patron, Emperor Claudius, for otherwise the familia Caesaris would have had a new pater, Emperor Nero, which would have been noted in the inscription. To be an imperial slave was vital to social prestige, which is why Nisus was granted approval for burial in Sceptus’ tomb. Sceptus’ children from his second marriage were citizens, all enrolled in tribus Tromentina (even the daughter), and evidently legal adults according to Roman law. His children from his first marriage, all freedmen, were even older, and we believe that for them there was only a theoretical possibility that they were freed by Augustus’ freed-man Admetus and his wife Julia at the very end of Claudius’ reign. The monument was thus raised dur-ing Nero’s reign, and perhaps this occurred even later, in the Flavian era.

Sceptus, sevir Augustalis, was not an imperial freedman, rather he was manumitted by an imperial freedman. Weaver says that the post of sevir Augusta-lis which appears on inscription CIL 3, 2097 is ex-ceptional for the freedman of an imperial freedman.59 The equally exceptional phenomenon of imperial freedmen becoming sevir Augustalis followed, in our opinion, from the same primary reason that the famil-ia Caesaris has been epigraphically confirmed mainly in the city of Rome, in which the institution of seviri Augustales had not been organized. However, there were no barriers to imperial freedmen (and their own freedmen) elsewhere in Italy and the provinces from becoming so, which has been confirmed in modest body of inscriptions mentioning the freedmen of the familia Caesaris outside of Rome.

One example is in the decree from Veii (CIL 11, 3805).60 Gaius Julius Gelos, a freedman of Augustus

59 http://alte-geschichte.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/home/Abteilungen/Alte_Geschichte/Mitarbeiter/Eck/Weaver/02_Iulii.pdf (p. 8, no. 7).

60 Centumviri municipii Augusti Veientis / Romae in aedem Veneris Genetricis cum convenis/sent placuit universis dum decretum conscriberetur / interim ex auctoritate omnium permitti / C(aio) Iulio divi Augusti l(iberto) Ge-loti qui omni tempore / municip(ium) Veios non solum consilio et gratia adiuverit / sed etiam i<m=N>pensis suis et per filium suum celebrari / voluerit honorem ei iustissimum decerni ut / Augustalium numero habeatur

to sin, kao što to radi za svu djecu) upisanom u tribus Tromentina, zatim sinu Gaju Juliju Akvili (sinu Gaja) upisanom u tribus Tromentina, zatim sinu Luciju Juli-ju Sceptu (sinu Gaja) upisanom u isti glasački okrug, konačno kćeri Juliji Admeti (kćeri Gaja) za koju pre-uzetno navodi da je upisana u tribus Tromentina, iako žene nemaju pravo glasa. Slijede imena tri djeteta za koje Weaver kaže da su to djeca ranije supruge, po-kojne Julije Prime koja je mulieris liberta (Caiae li-berta tj. oslobodila ju je žena). Za nju Weaver kaže da nije bila carska robinja i da nije bila oslobođena u vri-jeme kada su joj rođena djeca. To je vrlo vjerojatno; kao ropkinja mogla je imati djecu s budućim mužem, tada još robom Sceptom, i vjerojatno je njezin patron bila Iulia, supruga carskog oslobođenika Gaja Julija Admeta, koja je oslobodila i Priminu kćer Scepsidu i sina Trijumfala u isto vrijeme kada je i Admet oslobo-dio Romanu, još jednu kćer (Julije) Prime, kao i (Gaja Julija) Scepta, Primina budućeg muža. Stoga ta djeca nose libertinsku oznaku (vezanu bilo uz patrona Ad-meta bilo uz patronu Juliju), svi nose gentilicij Julija, a nemaju oznake glasačkog okruga jer nisu slobod-norođena (kao što su djeca iz drugog braka). Tek će njihova djeca, koji će biti ingenui, moći nositi tribus.

Na natpisu se spominje i pokojni Nizo, rob Tiberija Klaudija, tj. pripadnik familiae Caesaris. Vjerojatno je on i umro dok je vladao njegov patron car Klaudije, jer bi u suprotnome familia Caesaris dobila novog pa-tera, cara Nerona, što bi na natpisu bilo istaknuto. Biti carski rob, bitno je za društveni prestiž, zbog čega je Nizo dobio dopuštenje sahrane u Sceptovoj grobnici. Sceptova djeca iz drugog braka su građani, svi upisani u tribus Tromentina (čak i kći), očito punoljetni pre-ma rimskom zakonu. Njegova djeca iz prvog braka, svi oslobođenici, još su i stariji, i mislimo da za njih postoji samo teoretska mogućnost da su ih Augustov oslobođenik Admet i njegova žena Julija oslobodili već na samom kraju Klaudijeve vladavine. Stoga je spomenik podignut tijekom Neronove vlasti, a možda se to zbilo i nešto kasnije, u doba Flavijevaca.

Sceptus, sevir Augustalis, nije carski libertin, nego ga je manumitirao carski oslobođenik. Weaver kaže da je služba sevir augustal koja se javlja na nat-pisu CIL 3, 2097 izuzetna za oslobođenika carskog oslobođenika.59 Jednako izuzetna pojava da carski oslobođenici postaju seviri augustali proizlazi, pre-ma našem mišljenju, iz istoga glavnog razloga što je familia Caesaris epigrafički potvrđena uglavnom u gradu Rimu, u kojem nije organizirana institucija se-viri Augustales. Međutim, nema nikakve prepreke da

59 http://alte-geschichte.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/home/Abteilungen/Alte_Geschichte/Mitarbeiter/Eck/Weaver/02_Iulii.pdf (str. 8, br. 7).

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

158

Divus, was given by the Veii centumviri (the munici-pal ordo) and the community the honour of member-ship among the Augustales, he was allowed to sit on the bisellium among the Augustales at municipal pub-lic spectacles, to be in the company of the centumviri at public feasts (which meant that he had acquired ius honorum and was enrolled in the album of the munici-pal council) and finally, he and his children were freed from payment of the municipal vectigal. The inscrip-tion was dated by the consular year (26 AD), and the decision was recorded before a duovir, quaestor and several centumviri.61 How much prestige a former im-perial slave of Augustus had can be seen not only in the granting of privileges but also in the ornate style in which this member of the Veientine municipium Augustum was lauded. If we were to link his position as a member of the Augustalis order with the fact that the session was held in the temple of Venus Genetrix, the goddess of the Julian gens, it is clear that the for-mer members of the familia Caesaris were powerful, regardless of the fact that they were not ingenui, and that they, together with the emperor’s friends (amici), were key individuals in the expansion of the imperial cult. Distinguished Augustales were even assigned to the ranks of the centumviri of Veii (municipium Au-gustum Veiens).62

What was an imperial freedman doing in Veii? Pre-cisely because of the pro-Julian atmosphere in which the session proceeded, Moreno rejects the possibility that the inscription reflects Livy’s literary account (Liv. 5.22.8) of the Trojan origin and fate of the Veientes.63 We posit that Julius Gelos played an important role in

aeque ac si eo / honore usus sit liceatque ei omnibus spectaculis / municipio nostro bisellio proprio inter Augus/tales considere cenisque omnibus publicis / in-ter centumviros interesse itemque placere / ne quod ab eo liberisque eius vectigal municipii / Augusti Veientis exigeretur / adfuerunt / C(aius) Scaevius Curiatius / Cn(aeus) Octavius Sabinus / IIvir(i) // L(ucius) Per-perna Priscus / Ma(nius) Flavius Rufus q(uaestor) / T(itus) Vettius Rufus q(uaestor) / M(arcus) Tarquitius Saturnin(us) / L(ucius) Maecilius Scrupus / L(ucius) Favonius Lucanus // T(itus) Sempronius Gracchus / P(ublius) Acuvius P(ubli) f(ilius) Tro(mentina) / C(aius) Veianius Maximus / T(itus) Tarquitius Rufus / C(aius) Iulius Merula // actum / Gaetulico et Calvisio Sabino co(n)s(ulibus).

61 Later another brief text was added, dated by the con-sular pair to 44 AD, in which the death of Gelos’ son is mentioned.

62 CIL 11, 3809: Cn(aeo) Caesio Athicto / adlecto inter Cvir(os) / omnib(us) honorib(us) exornato / August-ales municipii / Aug(usti) Veientis / ex aere conlato h(onoris) c(ausa).

63 Moreno 2017, pp. 80-81.

carski oslobođenici (i njihovi oslobođenici) po Italiji i provincijama to ne postanu, što je i potvrđeno u ne-velikom korpusu natpisa sa spomenom oslobođenika familiae Caesaris izvan Rima.

Jedan primjer je na dekretu iz Veja (CIL 11, 3805).60 Gaju Juliju Gelotu, oslobođeniku božanskog Augusta, vejenski centumviri (gradski ordo) i zajednica daju počast uvrštenja među augustale, dopušteno mu je na javnim spektaklima municipija sjediti na biseliju među augustalima, da na javnim gozbama bude zajed-no s centumvirima (što znači da je stekao ius honorum i upisan je u album gradskog vijeća); naposljetku, on i njegova djeca oslobođena su od plaćanja munici-palnog vektigala. Natpis je datiran konzulskom godi-nom (26. g. 1. stoljeća), a odluka je zapisana ispred duovira, kvestora i nekoliko centumvira.61 Koliko je prestižan status bivšeg Augustova carskog roba, vidi se ne samo iz davanja privilegija nego i iz kićenog stila kojim hvale tog pripadnika vejenskog municipija Augustum. Povežemo li njegovu poziciju člana augu-stalskog reda, s činjenicom da je sjednica održana u hramu Venere Roditeljice (Venus Genetrix), božice roda Julija, jasno je da su bivši pripadnici familiae Caesaris bili moćni, bez obzira što nisu bili ingenui, te da su, zajedno s carskim prijateljima (amici) ključ-ne osobe u širenju carskoga kulta. Istaknuti augustali

60 Centumviri municipii Augusti Veientis / Romae in aedem Veneris Genetricis cum convenis/sent placu-it universis dum decretum conscriberetur / interim ex auctoritate omnium permitti / C(aio) Iulio divi Augusti l(iberto) Geloti qui omni tempore / municip(ium) Vei-os non solum consilio et gratia adiuverit / sed etiam i<m=N>pensis suis et per filium suum celebrari / vo-luerit honorem ei iustissimum decerni ut / Augustalium numero habeatur aeque ac si eo / honore usus sit licea-tque ei omnibus spectaculis / municipio nostro bisellio proprio inter Augus/tales considere cenisque omnibus publicis / inter centumviros interesse itemque placere / ne quod ab eo liberisque eius vectigal municipii / Au-gusti Veientis exigeretur / adfuerunt / C(aius) Scaevi-us Curiatius / Cn(aeus) Octavius Sabinus / IIvir(i) // L(ucius) Perperna Priscus / Ma(nius) Flavius Rufus q(uaestor) / T(itus) Vettius Rufus q(uaestor) / M(arcus) Tarquitius Saturnin(us) / L(ucius) Maecilius Scrupus / L(ucius) Favonius Lucanus // T(itus) Sempronius Gra-cchus / P(ublius) Acuvius P(ubli) f(ilius) Tro(mentina) / C(aius) Veianius Maximus / T(itus) Tarquitius Rufus / C(aius) Iulius Merula // actum / Gaetulico et Calvisio Sabino co(n)s(ulibus).

61 Poslije je dopisan još jedan kratki tekst, datiran kon-zulskim parom u 44. g. 1. st., u kojem se spominje smrt Gelosova sina.


159

the reinforcement of imperial propaganda which was the responsibility of the cultores, Augustales (seviri Augustales municipii Augusti Veientis) who were cer-tainly mentioned in Veii in inscriptions posted already during the lifetime of Augustus, but after 12 BC (CIL 11, 3808, CIL 11, 3809, CIL 11, 3782…). In this pe-riod, they were defined as one of the municipal social classes as specified in inscription CIL 11, 3808 (…centumviri et seviri et Augustales et municipes intra-murani). The Veientine inscriptions are important be-cause they belong to the oldest class of seviri August-ales established by Augustus, and they constituted the model for their activity and organization inside a municipality. They also show that they were different from the seviri.

The damaged funerary inscription CIL 3, 8804 (Salona) mentions a person who was a sevir Augusta-lis coloniae Salonitanorum.64 The stress placed on co-lonial affiliation reflected the desire to underscore the official and magisterial character of this collegium. The same thing was done by members of the colle-gium of seviri, another association of freedmen in Sa-lona (while at places in northern and central Italy the seviri could be mixed associations of freedmen and citizens), which differed from the Augustales because they were not cultores. Publius Aelius, in inscription CIL 3, 6377 = CIL 3, 8657, proclaimed himself a sevir Salonitanorum.65 We conclude that in Salona the se-viri Augustales constituted an association with an an-nual term, but we may only speculate as to whether it was the core of the Augustalis order. Another variable is when the collegium of Augustales was established in Salona. Their numbers indicated the possibility that they had emerged in the first wave of formation, dur-ing the lifetime of Augustus, as was the case in Fal-erii.

In inscription CIL 11, 3083 (Falerii Novi), there is mention of Augustales magistrates in Falerii: Honori{s} / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris divi f(ilii) / Augus-ti pont(ificis) maxim(i) / patr(is) patriae et municip(ii) / magistri Augustales / C(aius) Egnatius M(arci) l(ibertus) Glyco / C(aius) Egnatius C(ai) l(ibertus) Musicus / C(aius) Iulius Caesar(is) l(ibertus) Isochry-sus / Q(uintus) Floronius Q(uinti) l(ibertus) Princeps / viam Augustam ab via / Annia extra portam ad / Cer-eris silice sternendam / curarunt pecunia sua / pro ludis.

64 …cum co]mpare suo / [3 an]nis XXX / [3] Silicius / [3]rtius / [3 IIIII]Ivir Aug(ustalis) / [coloni]ae Salonita/[n]orum.

65 D(is) [M(anibus)] / Publius Ael[ius 3] / sevir Salonit[anorum(?) 3] / se vivo p(osuit) sibi et Claud[iae 3] / carissim(a)e <c=QV>on<c=Q>u[binae(?).

čak su bili adlegirani među centumvire Veja (munici-pium Augustum Veiens).62

Što carski oslobođenik radi u Vejima? Upravo zbog projulijevskog ambijenta u kojem se odvija sjednica, Moreno odbija mogućnost da se na natpisu reflekti-ra Livijeva literarna figura (Liv. 5.22.8) o trojanskom podrijetlu i sudbini Vejanaca.63 Nagađamo da je Juli-je Gelot imao važnu ulogu u osnaživanju imperijalne propagande čiji su nositelji cultores, augustali (seviri Augustales municipii Augusti Veientis) koji se u Ve-jima pouzdano spominju na natpisima podignutima još za Augustova života, a iza 12. g. pr. Kr. (CIL 11, 3808, CIL 11, 3809, CIL 11, 3782…). U tom su raz-doblju definirani kao jedan od gradskih društvenih slojeva kao što je navedeno na natpisu CIL 11, 3808 (…centumviri et seviri et Augustales et municipes intramurani). Vejenski natpisi su važni jer pripadaju najstarijem sloju od Augusta ustanovljenih sevira au-gustala, te predstavljaju model za njihovo djelovanje i organiziranje unutar municipaliteta. Ujedno pokazuju da su oni različiti od sevira.

Na oštećenom nadgrobnom natpisu CIL 3, 8804 (Salona) spominje se osoba koja je sevir Augustalis coloniae Salonitanorum.64 Isticanje pripadnosti kolo-niji iskaz je želje da se naglasi oficijelnost i magistrat-ski karakter tog kolegija. Na sličan način postupaju pripadnici kolegija sevira, još jednog oslobođeničkog tijela u Saloni (dok ponegdje u sjevernoj i srednjoj Italiji seviri mogu biti i miješana oslobođeničko-gra-đanska tijela), koje se razlikuje od augustala jer nisu cultores. Publije Elije na nadgrobnom natpisu CIL 3, 6377 = CIL 3, 8657 izjašnjava se kao sevir Salonita-norum.65 Zaključimo da u Saloni seviri augustali čine godišnje mandatno tijelo, za koje možemo samo na-gađati da je bilo jezgra augustalskog reda. Još jedna nepoznanica je vrijeme uspostavljanja augustalskih kolegija u Saloni. Njihova brojnost upućuje na mo-gućnost da su nastali u prvom valu konstituiranja, još za Augustova života, kao što je to slučaj u Falerijima.

Na natpisu CIL 11, 3083 (Falerii Novi) spomi-nju se magistri Augustales u Falerijima: Honori{s} / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris divi f(ilii) / Augusti pont(ificis) maxim(i) / patr(is) patriae et municip(ii) / magistri

62 CIL 11, 3809: Cn(aeo) Caesio Athicto / adlecto inter Cvir(os) / omnib(us) honorib(us) exornato / Augu-stales municipii / Aug(usti) Veientis / ex aere conlato h(onoris) c(ausa).

63 Moreno 2017, str. 80-81.64 …cum co]mpare suo / [3 an]nis XXX / [3] Silicius / [3]

rtius / [3 IIIII]Ivir Aug(ustalis) / [coloni]ae Salonita/[n]orum.

65 D(is) [M(anibus)] / Publius Ael[ius 3] / sevir Salonit[anorum(?) 3] / se vivo p(osuit) sibi et Claud[iae 3] / carissim(a)e <c=QV>on<c=Q>u[binae(?).

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

160

Augustales / C(aius) Egnatius M(arci) l(ibertus) Glyco / C(aius) Egnatius C(ai) l(ibertus) Musicus / C(aius) Iulius Caesar(is) l(ibertus) Isochrysus / Q(uintus) Floronius Q(uinti) l(ibertus) Princeps / viam Augu-stam ab via / Annia extra portam ad / Cereris silice sternendam / curarunt pecunia sua / pro ludis.

Među kolegijatima koji su poduzeli akciju poplo-čavanja ulice u čast Augusta i municipija, spominje se C. Iulius Caesar(is) I. Isochrysus.66 Bakkum u jez-grovitoj raspravi o statusnom odnosu gradova Falerii Veteres i Falerii Novi smatra kako iz epigrafičkih po-tvrda prilično sigurno možemo zaključiti da tijekom 1. st. Falerii Novi imaju status municipium sine suf-fragio, što se vidi iz natpisa CIL 11, 3083, 3103, 3112, 3116, 3121, 3125, 3127, 3147 i 31551,1. U neodređe-no vrijeme kasnije su dobili status kolonije, što se vidi iz natpisa CIL 11, 3089 i 3094 na kojima je car Gali-jen počašćen kao redintegrator coloniae Faliscorum, iz Plinijeva teksta (NH 3.5.51), a spominje ga i Liber Coloniarum (217.5).67 Dodajmo da Galijenovu titulu redintegrator možemo prevesti kao onaj koji je pot-krijepio (status) Falerija, tj. koji je iznova konstituirao grad. Di Stefano Manzella s pravom ističe da rijetka formula pater patriae et municipii u Augustovoj tituli jasno ukazuje na bliskost Augusta s Falerijima,68 zbog čega smijemo spekulirati da su Faleriji u to vrijeme iz statusa kolonije (civium Romanorum ili Latinorum) bili prebačeni u municipalni status. Natpis je datiran između 2. g. pr. Kr., kada je August dobio titulu pater patriae,69 i 14. g. po. Kr.

Osim na natpisu CIL 11, 3083 institucija magistra (sevira) Augustala zabilježena je u Falerijima na još nekoliko natpisa nastalih za careva života. Od najve-će važnosti je CIL 11, 3135, na kojem se spominju Mag(istri) Augus(tales) anni quarti, što bi značilo da su bili magistri četvrte godine gradskog kalendara, pa je datum podizanja natpisa EDR160513 u EAGLE bazi određen od 10. g. pr. Kr. do 14. po. Kr.70 Ipak, tre-ba korigirati prvu moguću godinu u tom rasponu, jer magistri (seviri) Augustales u Italiji nastaju najranije 12. g. pr. Kr., a kako su to jednogodišnji magistrati, to znači da je 9. g. pr. Kr. najraniji mogući datum kada je ovaj natpis nastao, ujedno četvrta godina u gradskom kalendaru. Grad je, znači, konstituiran 12. g. pr. Kr., kada je došla i pobuda za osnivanje sevira augustala

66 Paul Weaver, Repertorium Familiae Caesarum. I. Iulii Augusti liberti, str. 30, br. 150 (http://www.uni-koeln.de/philfak/ifa/altg/eck/weaver.htm).

67 Bakkum 2009, str. 43-44.68 Di Stefano Manzella 1990, str. 345-347, 362.69 Kienast 2004, str. 64.70 http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/res_complex_

comune.php?do=book&id_nr=EDR160513&partId=1.

Among the collegium members who partook in the campaign to pave the streets in honour of Augustus and the municipium, a certain C. Iulius Caesar(is) I. Isochrysus is mentioned.66 In a concise discussion of the status relations between the cities of Falerii Vet-eres and Falerii Novi, Bakkum believes that based on epigraphic confirmations we may conclude with considerable certainty that during the 1st century Fal-erii Novi had the status of municipium sine suffragio, which may be seen from inscription CIL 11, 3083, 3103, 3112, 3116, 3121, 3125, 3127, 3147 i 31551,1. At some unspecified later point the city obtained the status of colony, which may be seen in inscription CIL 11, 3089 and 3094 in which Emperor Gallienus is honoured as redintegrator coloniae Faliscorum, from Pliny’s writings (NH 3.5.51), and he is also men-tioned by the Liber Coloniarum (217.5).67 We should add that the Gallienus’ title of redintegrator may be translated as the one who validated (the status of) Fal-erii, i.e., the one who reconstituted the city. Di Stefano Manzella rightfully stresses that the rare formula pa-ter patriae et municipii in Augustus’ title clearly indi-cates the closeness of Augustus to Falerii,68 which is why we may speculate that at that time Falerii moved from colonial status (civium Romanorum or Latino-rum) to municipal status. The inscription was dated between 2 BC, when Augustus acquired the title of pater patriae,69 and 14 AD.

Besides inscription CIL 11, 3083 the institution of the magistrate (sevir) Augustalis has been recorded in Falerii in several other inscriptions that appeared during the emperor’s lifetime. The most important is CIL 11, 3135, in which there is mention of Mag(istri) Augus(tales) anni quarti, which would mean that they were magistrates in the fourth year of the city calendar, so the dating of the installation of inscrip-tion EDR160513 in the EAGLE database has been set between 10 BC and 14 AD.70 Even so, the first pos-sible year in this range should be corrected, because magistri (seviri) Augustales in Italy appeared in 12 BC at the earliest, and since these were magistrates with one-year terms, this means that 9 BC is the earli-est possible date when the inscription may have ap-peared, also the fourth year in the city’s calendar. This means that the city was constituted in 12 BC, when

66 Paul Weaver, Repertorium Familiae Caesarum. I. Iulii Augusti liberti, p. 30, no. 150 (http://www.uni-koeln.de/philfak/ifa/altg/eck/weaver.htm).

67 Bakkum 2009, pp. 43-44.68 Di Stefano Manzella 1990, pp. 345-347, 362.69 Kienast 2004, p. 64.70 http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/res_complex_

comune.php?do=book&id_nr=EDR160513&partId=1.


161

od cara Augusta, u godini u kojoj je on postao pontifex maximus zadužen za strukturiranje rimske religije.71

Za usporedbu, magistri Augustales primi u Nepetu javljaju se na natpisu CIL 11, 3200 precizno datira-nom u 12. g. pr. Kr. na temelju magistratura u tituli cara Augusta: Imp(eratori) Caesari divi f(ilio) / Augu-sto / pontif(ici) maxim(o) co(n)s(uli) XI / tribunic(ia) potestat(e) XI / magistri Augustal(es) prim(i) / Phili-ppus Augusti libert(us) / M(arcus) Aebutius Secundus / M(arcus) Gallius Anchia<l=T>us / P(ublius) Fidu-stius Antigonus. Spomenik je evidentno baza za car-sku statuu, koju su sva četvorica pripadnika novoo-snovanoga kolegija podigli da iskažu zahvalnost caru. Na natpisu nije naznačeno da je dekurionsko vijeće sudjelovalo u akciji, očito je riječ o privatnom pot-hvatu, pa premda u natpisu izostaje riječ sacrum, on ima gotovo karakter konsakracije. Zbog navedenog, kao i drugdje u Italiji i provincijama, 12. g. pr. Kr. je najraniji mogući datum osnivanja sevira augustala u provinciji Dalmaciji, odnosno u Saloni.

U Falerijima i Nepetu očita je sveprisutnosti Augu-sta, u rasponu od njegove pokroviteljske uloge pater municipii do nazočnosti njegovih bivših robova koji na terenu provode njegovu političku volju za potrebe mehanizma uvođenja i opravdanja položaja princepsa Augusta kao višestrukoga moćnog magistrata čiji je adoptivni otac Božanski Cezar. Nije riječ o izoliranim slučajevima u pojedinim gradovima, nego o religij-skoj politici koja se provodila i u Italiji i u provinci-jama, pa se novi kult i festivali uz njega vezani uvode u službene faste godišnjega municipalnog ciklusa.72 Stoga Salona, glavni grad provincije Dalmacije, si-gurno nije bila iznimka, premda zasad izostaju natpisi augustala suvremeni Augustu. Nešto kasniji većinom su sepulkralni i uglavnom daju malu količinu dodat-nih informacija osim što taksativno navode taj položaj unutar slijeda časti oslobođenika.

Na natpisu CIL 3, 2093 (p 2260) = CIL 3, 2325 spominje se carski oslobođenik Tit Flavije Baso koji je bio (sevir) Augustalis u Saloni: T(ito) Flavio Aug(usti) lib(erto) Basso August(ali) / Claudia T(iti) f(ilia) The-tis marit(o) b(ene) m(erenti) / et T(itus) Flavius Fe-lix [vix(it) ann(os) 3]X pro parte quint(a) / patrono / h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem) n(on) s(equetur) in f(ronte) p(edes) IX(?) in agr(o) p(edes) XXV.

Praenomen i nomen Titus Flavius nose sva tri cara flavijevske dinastije, što znači da mu je jedan od njih dao slobodu. Time je odmah stekao ius conu-bii i nije bilo prepreke da se oženi građankom Kla-udijom Tetidom. Postoji mogućnost da je i njezina

71 Kienast 2004, str. 64.72 Primjer su Trebulanski fasti CIL 6, 29681=AE 1991

(Trebula Suffenas).

the initiative by Emperor Augustus to establish the se-viri Augustales came, in the year in which he became pontifex maximus charged with the structuring of Ro-man religion.71

By way of comparison, magistri Augustales primi appeared in Nepete in inscription CIL 11, 3200 dated precisely to 12 BC on the basis of the use of magistrate in the title of Emperor Augustus: Imp(eratori) Caesari divi f(ilio) / Augusto / pontif(ici) maxim(o) co(n)s(uli) XI / tribunic(ia) potestat(e) XI / magistri Augustal(es) prim(i) / Philippus Augusti libert(us) / M(arcus) Ae-butius Secundus / M(arcus) Gallius Anchia<l=T>us / P(ublius) Fidustius Antigonus. The monument is evidently the base for a statue of the emperor, raised by all four members of the newly-established colle-gium to express their gratitude to the emperor. The inscription does not mention that the decurion council participated in this act, which was obviously a private undertaking, so even though the word sacrum is ab-sent from the inscription, it almost has the character of a consecration. Because of this, as elsewhere in Italy and the provinces, 12 BC is the earliest possible date for establishment of the seviri Augustales in the prov-ince of Dalmatia, and thus in Salona.

The omnipresence of Augustus was quite apparent in Falerii and Nepete, ranging from his sponsorship role as pater municipii to the presence of his former slaves who carried out his political will in the field for the needs of the mechanism to introduce and justify his status as princeps Augustus, the preeminent pow-erful magistrate whose adoptive father was Divine Caesar. These were not isolated cases in individual cities, but rather a religious policy which was imple-mented in Italy and the provinces, so the new cult and festivals tied to him were introduced to the official festivals of the annual municipal cycle.72 Thus Salona, the capital city of the province of Dalmatia, was cer-tainly not an exception, although for now inscriptions of Augustales contemporary to Augustus are lacking. Somewhat later, they were mostly sepulchral in char-acter and generally provide little additional informa-tion besides explicitly mentioning this post within the list of honours of a given freedman.

Inscription CIL 3, 2093 (p 2260) = CIL 3, 2325 mentions the imperial freedman Titus Flavius Bas-sus, who was a (sevir) Augustalis in Salona: T(ito) Flavio Aug(usti) lib(erto) Basso August(ali) / Clau-dia T(iti) f(ilia) Thetis marit(o) b(ene) m(erenti) / et T(itus) Flavius Felix [vix(it) ann(os) 3]X pro parte quint(a) / patrono / h(oc) m(onumentum) h(eredem)

71 Kienast 2004, p. 64.72 An example are the Trebulan festivals, CIL 6,

29681=AE 1991 (Trebula Suffenas).

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

162

obitelj oslobođeničkog (manje vjerojatno peregrin-skog podrijetla).73 Naime, kako njezin otac Tit ne nosi praenomen Klaudijevaca, postoji velika šansa da joj je djed (Tiberius) Claudius carski oslobođe-nik ili peregrin, koji je nakon otpuštanja iz auksilijar-nih postrojba stekao taj, veoma čest carski gentilicij. Bez obzira što je ovakvo razmišljanje spekulativno, natpis održava interesne brakove ravnopravnih čim-benika unutar specifične društvene skupine. Carska nomina kronološki su pokazatelji datuma podizanja spomenika, a to je sam kraj 1. ili početak 2. st. Naziv Augustalis iz natpisa stoga se odnosi na živuće care-ve, Trajana ili Hadrijana.

Zaključujemo da seviri Augustales u Saloni odgo-varaju profilu tog kolegija u rano doba principata. Oni su cultores, aktivni sudionici u promidžbi carskoga kulta i imperijalne propagande, zbog čega ih treba razlikovati od municipalnih sevira. Moć i ugled augu-stala recipročni su važnosti građanskih obitelji kojima pripadaju, odnosno njihovim patronima manumisori-ma. Kao i u Italiji, odlučujuću ulogu u održavanju car-skoga kulta u ranijim razvojnim fazama imaju oslo-bođenici augustali iz redova familiae Caesaris te iz obitelji u sustavu carske uprave i administracije.

73 O republikanskim i carskim formalnim i neformalnim postupcima manumisije vidi kod Dundonald Melville 1915, str. 109-116; Gardner 2002, str. 8-11.

n(on) s(equetur) in f(ronte) p(edes) IX(?) in agr(o) p(edes) XXV.

The praenomen and nomen Titus Flavius were borne by three emperors of the Flavian dynasty, which means that one of them granted him his freedom. He thereby immediately acquired ius conubii and there was no obstacle to marrying the citizen Claudia The-tis. There is a possibility that her family may have also been freed (or, less likely, of peregrine origin).73 As her father Titus did not bear the praenomen of the Claudians, there is a good chance that her grandfather (Tiberius) Claudius was an imperial freedman or per-egrine, who after his discharge from an auxiliary unit acquired this, rather common, imperial gentilicium. Regardless of the fact that such reasoning is specula-tive, the inscription reflects the marriages of interest between equal members of a particular social group. The imperial nomina are chronological indicators of the monument’s date, and this is the very end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd century. The designation Au-gustalis from the inscription does not, therefore, per-tain to the then living emperors, Trajan or Hadrian.

We shall conclude that the seviri Augustales in Sa-lona complied with the profile of this collegium in the early phase of the Principate. They were cultores, ac-tive participants in the promotion of the imperial cult and imperial propaganda, so that they should be dis-tinguished from municipal seviri. The power and rep-utation of the Augustales reflected the importance of the citizen families to which they belonged, and their patrons/manumissors. As in Italy, the decisive role in the maintenance of the imperial cult in the earlier de-velopmental phases was played by the freedmen of Augustus from the ranks of the familia Caesaris and from the families within the system of imperial gov-ernance and administration.

73 On the republican and imperial formal and informal manumission procedures, see Dundonald Melville 1915, pp. 109-116; Gardner 2002, pp. 8-11.


163

KRATICE / ABBREVIATIONS

AE Anneé épigraphique, ParisCIL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, BerlinGodišnjak ANUBiH Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine,

Sarajevo ILJug Anna et Jaro Šašel, Inscriptiones latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX

repertae et editae sunt (Situla, 5, Ljubljana, 1963); Inscriptiones latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMLX et MCMLXX repertae et editae sunt (Situla, 19, Ljubljana, 1978); Inscriptiones latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMXL repertae et editae sunt (Situla, 25, Ljubljana, 1986)

PWRE Pauly Wissowa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, StuttgartRFFZd Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, ZadarVAHD Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, SplitVAPD Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku, Split

LITERATURA / BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramenko 1993 A. Abramenko, Die munizipale Mittelschicht im Kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu ei-nem neuen Verständnis von Sevirat und Augustalität, Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – New York 1993.

Austin, Rankov 1998 N. J. E. Austin, B. Rankov, Exploratio. Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople, London – New York 1998.

Bakkum 2009 G. C. L. M. Bakkum, The Latin dialect of the Ager Faliscus. 150 years os Scho-larship, Part I, Amsterdam 2009.

Bekavac 2011 S. Bekavac, Silvanov kult u Saloni, VAPD 104, Split 2011, 151-166.Bekavac 2013 S. Bekavac, Uloga metroačkih kognacija u Saloni. The role of the metroac cogna-

tio in Salona, VAPD 106, Split 2013, 187-203.Bekavac 2015 S. Bekavac, Rimska religija i kultovi u društvenoj strukturi pretkršćanske Salone,

doktorska disertacija, rukopis, Sveučilište u Zadru, Zadar 2015.Bekavac, Glavaš 2011 S. Bekavac, I. Glavaš, Jupiterov kult u Skardoni, Diadora, 25, Zadar 2011, 78-

85.Bekavac, Miletić 2016 S. Bekavac, Ž. Miletić, Stanovnicima Narone – municipibus municipii. To the

Inhabitants of Narona – municipibus municipii, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 33, Zagreb 2016, 237-246.

Bremmer 1979 J. Bremmer, The Legend of Cybele’s Arrival in Rome, in: Studies in Hellenistic Religions, M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Leiden 1979, 9-22.

Cambi 1969 N. Cambi, Sarkofag Gaja Albucija Menippa, VAHD 63-64 (1961-1962), Split 1969, 99-111.

Cambi 1997 N. Cambi, Svetište (Augusteum) u Oneu (Oneum)?, RFFZd 35 (22), 1995/96, Zadar 1997, 71-81.

Cambi 2005 N. Cambi, Kiparstvo rimske Dalmacije, Split 2005.Cambi 2009 N. Cambi, Skribonijanova pobuna protiv Klaudija u Dalmaciji godine 42., Rad

Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 505, Razred za društvene znanosti, knj. 47, Zagreb 2009, 63-79.

Cambi 2013 N. Cambi, Religija Silvana i nimfa u rimskoj Dalmaciji, in: Kultovi, mitovi i vje-rovanja u Zagori, Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog 14. prosinca 2012. u Unešiću, V. Kapitanović (ed.), Split 2013, 15-41.

Cambi et al. 2006 N. Cambi, M. Glavičić, D. Maršić, Ž. Miletić, J. Zaninović, Amfiteatar u Burnu-mu. Stanje istraživanja 2003.-2005., Drniš – Šibenik – Zadar 2006.

Di Stefano Manzella 1990 I. Di Stefano Manzella, Lo stato giuridico di Falerii Novi dalla fondazione al III sec. d.C., in: La civiltà dei Falisci, Atti del XV Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed

VAHD 111, 2018, 139-165

164

Italici (Civita Castellana-Forte San Gallo 28-31 maggio 1987), Firenze 1990, 341-367.

Dundonald Melville 1915 R. Dundonald Melville, A manual of the principles of Roman law relating to persons, property, and obligations, Edinburgh 1915.

Duthoy 1978 R. Duthoy, Les Augustales, Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römische Welt. Geschi-chte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung II, 16.2, Berlin – New York 1978, 1254-1309.

Eck 2007 W. Eck, The Age of Augustus, Malden – Oxford – Carlton 2007.Fletcher 2014 K. F. B. Fletcher, Finding Italy. Travel, Nation and Colonization in Vergil’s Aene-

id, Ann Arbor 2014.Gardner 2002 J. F. Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, London – New York 2002.Glavičić 2002 M. Glavičić, Gradski dužnosnici na natpisima obalnog područja rimske provin-

cije Dalmacije, doktorska disertacija, rukopis, Filozofski fakultet u Zadru, Zadar 2002.

Glavičić, Miletić 2008 M. Glavičić, Ž. Miletić, Critical approach to the exhibitions of the Imperial Cult un the Roman Illyricum with the regard to its early stage of development, in: ARCHAIA: Case Studies on Research Planning, Characterisation, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, British Archaeological Reports Series 1877, N. Marchetti, I. Thuesen (eds.), Oxford 2008, 417-426.

Glavičić, Miletić 2012 M. Glavičić, Ž. Miletić, Arhitektura amfiteatra u Burnumu, Histria antiqua 21, Pula 2012, 157-172.

Gradel 2002 I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford 2002.Jadrić-Kučan 2011 I. Jadrić-Kučan, Carski kult u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji, doktorska disertacija,

rukopis, Sveučilište u Zadru, Zadar 2011.Jagenteufel 1958 A. Jagenteufel, Die Statthalter der Römischen Provinz Dalmatia von Augustus bis

Diokletian, Wien 1958.Karković Takalić 2012 P. Karković Takalić, Vrijeme uvođenja i uloga arhigala u svjetlu natpisa Lucija

Publicija Sintropa iz Kopra, Archaeologia Adriatica 6, Zadar 2012, 87-105.Kienast 2004 D. Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronolo-

gie, Darmstadt 2004.López Barja de Quiroga 1995 P. López Barja de Quiroga, Freedmen Social Mobility in Roman Italy, Historia:

Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 44-3, Stuttgart 1995, 326-348.López Barja de Quiroga, Latins 1998 P. López Barja de Quiroga, J. Latins: Status and Number, Athenaeum 86-1, Pavia

1998, 133-163.Matijević 2015 I. Matijević, Rimski vojnici na natpisima iz Salone iz doba principata, doktorska

disertacija, rukopis, Sveučilište u Zadru, Zadar 2015.Medini 1982 J. Medini, Salonitanski arhigalat, RFFZd 20 (9), Zadar 1982, 15-28.Medini 1985 J. Medini, Cognationes salonitanae, Godišnjak ANUBiH 21, Sarajevo 1985,

5-45.Miletić 2010 Ž. Miletić, Burnum – vojničko središte provincije Dalmacije. Burnum a Military

Centre in the Province of Dalmatia, in: Nalazi rimske vojne opreme u Hrvat-skoj. Finds of the Roman Military Equipment In Croatia, I. Radman-Livaja (ed.), Zagreb 2010, 113-141.

Moreno 2017 A. Moreno, Reflexiones en torno al uso del motivo Iliupersis en la narracióm titoliviana de la caída de Veyos, Nova Tellus 35-1, Mexico City 2017, 59-85.

Mouritsen 2011 H. Mouritsen, The Freedman in the Roman World, New York 2011.Rankov 1999 B. Rankov, The governor’s men: the officium consularis in provincial administra-

tion, in: The Roman army as community. Including papers of conference held at Birkbeck College, A. Goldsworthy, I. Haynes (eds.), University of London on 11-12 January 1997, Journal of Roman archaeology, Supplementary series number 34, Rhode Island 1999, 15-35.

Rawson 1987 E. Rawson, Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis, Papers of the British School at Rome 55, Cambridge 1987, 83-114.


165

Reisch 1913 E. Reisch, Die Grabungen des Österreichischen archäologischen Institutes während der Jahre 1912 und 1913. Das Standlager von Burnum, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in Wien 16, Wien 1913, 112-135.

Ross Taylor 1914 L. Ross Taylor, Augustales, Seviri Augustales, and Seviri: A Chronological Study, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 45, Baltimore 1914, 231-253.

Simon 1990 E. Simon, Die Göter der Römer, München 1990.Šašel Kos 1994 M. Šašel Kos, Private Munificence in Salona under the Principate, VAHD 86,

Split 1994, 201-214.Šašel Kos 1999 M. Šašel Kos, Pre-Roman divinities of the eastern Alps and Adriatic, Situla 38,

Ljubljana 1999.Treggiari 1991 S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time

of Ulpian, Oxford 1991.Turcan 1996 R. Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire, Oxford 1996.Vermaseren 1977 M. J. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis the Myth and the Cult, London 1977.Weaver 1965 P. R. C. Weaver, Freedmen procurators in the Imperial Administration, Zeitschrift

für Alte Geschichte 14-4, Stuttgart 1965, 460-469.Wissowa 1986 G. Wissowa, Augustales, PWRE II, Stuttgart 1986, col. 2349-2361.

INTERNETSKI IZVORI / INTERNET SOURCES

P. Weaver, Repertorium Familiae Caesarum. http://alte-geschichte.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/home/Abtei-lungen/Alte_Geschichte/Mitarbeiter/Eck/Weaver/02_Iulii.pdf (vrijeme zadnjeg posjeta: siječanj 2018.)

http://www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/res_complex_comune.php?do=book&id_nr=EDR160513&partId=1 (vrije-me zadnjeg posjeta: siječanj 2018.)

Documents

Silvia Bekavac, Željko Miletić - CORE · 2020. 1. 5. · Silvia Bekavac, Željko Miletić, Seviri Augustales u Saloni The seviri Augustales in Salona 141 1. Seviri and seviri Augustales